JUDGMENT Ellis, J. - In this matter the Court was moved by Babu Sashi Bhusan Das, a pleader, ordinarily practising in Gaibandha in the district of Rangpur, who appeared in person. He filed a petition which, stripped of all its offensive irrelevancies, charged 2 Magistrates of Gaibandha -Mr. M.A. Muttalib, Sub-divisional Magistrate, and Mr. R.A. Khan a Lawyer Magistrate of Gaibandha, with contempt of the Sessions Court at Rangpur. On his petition a Rule was issued on each of the Magistrates to show cause why proceedings should not be taken against them for contempt of Court. The relevant records were called for. 2. We propose to deal first of all with the case of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Mr. M.A. Muttalib, and the relevant record in his case is Cri. Case No. 1089 of 1948 which was instituted on a complaint filed on 18-10-1948. The complainant was one Surendra Hath Chakrabarty, and on his complaint and after his examination on solemn affirmation Mr. M.A. Muttalib issued warrants of arrest u/s 406, Penal Code, against 3 persons, Jagabandhu Saha, Jagat Behari Saha and Nikunja Behari Saha. On 20-10-1048, Jagabandhu Saha and Nikunja Behari Saha both appeared in the Court of the District Magistrate and, in the absence on tour of the District Magistrate, Mr. F. Azim acting on his behalf directed that they were to appear before the S.D.O., Gaibandha on 16-11-1948 furnishing bail of Rs. 300 each. On 25-10-1948, Jagat Hari appeared before the District Magistrate and the order in his case was: Let him appear before S.D.O., Gaibandha on 16-11-1948. He may give bail of Rs. 300. Send papers to the S.D.O. On 26-10-1948, Jagat Behari appeared before Mr. Muttalib who recorded the following order: Seen the order of the learned D.M. Accused Jagat Behari may appear on 16-11-1948 on a bail of Rs. 300. As is not unusual in cases u/s 406, Penal Code, the Petitioners moved the Sessions Judge to have the proceedings against them quashed. It appears that one of them, Jagat Behari was acting on behalf of the others. The learned Sessions Judge on 11-12-1948 passed an order declining to make a reference to this Court and directing that the Petitioner was to remain on bail as before as granted by the D.M. In spite of this order, on 15-1-1949 when the accused again appeared before Mr. The learned Sessions Judge on 11-12-1948 passed an order declining to make a reference to this Court and directing that the Petitioner was to remain on bail as before as granted by the D.M. In spite of this order, on 15-1-1949 when the accused again appeared before Mr. Muttalib, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, he stepped up the bail from Rs. 300 to Rs. 5000, and called upon the accused to find bail to that amount. 3. At first the learned Magistrate showed cause in a written petition in which he argued with sophistic equivocation, unworthy of one in his position, that the words "on bail as before" did not mean "on the same amount of bail as before" and so he was justified in enhancing the bail from Rs. 300 to Rs. 5000. Subsequently, better thoughts prevailed and the learned Magistrate admitted his error and tendered an unconditional apology. 4. The next case is the case of Mr. R.A. Khan, Lawyer Magistrate of Gaibandha. The case in which he is concerned is G.R. Case No. 827 of 1948 pending in this Court. The accused in that case one Khichiruddin was before the S.D.O. Mr. Muttalib in custody on 12-12-1948. A bail petition was moved and the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate directed that pending a further report from the investigating officer the accused could be released on bail of Rs. 100. On the next date, 15-12-1948 a charge-sheet was received against Khichiruddin u/s 379, Penal Code, and Mr. Muttalib transferred the case to Mr. R.A. Khan, Lawyer Magistrate for disposal. When the case went before this Magistrate, he was obviously firmly of opinion that the accused should not be allowed bail, rejected a petition asking for him to be enlarged on bail and sent him to hajat. The Magistrate was clearly annoyed when the accused went to the Sessions Judge and obtained from the Sessions Judge an order releasing him on bail on certain conditions. The Magistrate's irritation is to be seen in his order of 6-6-1949, in which he comments on the fact that accused was a pickpocket having a previous conviction, and that though his Court did not grant bail to the accused, the learned Sessions Judge had granted bail. The learned Magistrate would do well in his orders to avoid any criticism, either express or implied, of his superior Court. 5. This, however, is not the worst. The learned Magistrate would do well in his orders to avoid any criticism, either express or implied, of his superior Court. 5. This, however, is not the worst. The accused once more moved the learned Sessions Judge and obtained from the Sessions Judge on 2-7-1949 an order upsetting the order of the Magistrate cancelling bail. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is in the following language: I do not consider in the circumstances stated that the bail should be cancelled. The Petitioner will continue on the same bail as before. This order is dated 2-7-1949. Two days later when the case came up before Mr. R.A. Khan again, he recorded the following order: Seen the order of the learned Court of Session. The accused will continue on the same bail as before The accused, therefore, may find a fresh bail bond of the same amount and nature as before - in default to hajat to the date fixed. It only needs to be added that the fresh bail bond was at first rejected on the ground that the surety was unfit, and the Magistrate told the Court Sub-Inspector to take necessary step to move the Sessions Judge to have the bail cancelled. 6. Mr. R.A. Khan submitted an expel nation of his conduct. After matching the Petitioner in his offensive irrelevancies, the Magistrate argues on his own behalf that the word(sic) "in the same bail as before" do not mean "(sic) the same bail bond as before," and, therefore he was entitled to demand, and if he thought (sic) to reject another bail bond. We can only describe this argument as a piece of pettifoggi(sic) chicanery unworthy of any Magistrate. Mr. Khs(sic) had subsequently second and better though and submitted an unqualified apology. 7. In these circumstances we accept t(sic) apologies and discharge the Rules with an impression of our grave disapproval of the condu(sic) of the two Magistrates concerned. We trust the in future these Magistrates will loyally car(sic) out the orders of their superior Court and n(sic) seek either to avoid or circumvent them. 8. Let a copy of this judgment be sent (sic) the Chief Secretary to the Government of Ea(sic) Bengal with the observation that in our opinion it is undesirable that the two Magistrates concerned shall remain in the same district as the Sessions Judge whose orders they have flouted Espahani, J. 9. 8. Let a copy of this judgment be sent (sic) the Chief Secretary to the Government of Ea(sic) Bengal with the observation that in our opinion it is undesirable that the two Magistrates concerned shall remain in the same district as the Sessions Judge whose orders they have flouted Espahani, J. 9. I agree.