ORDER Mahesh Chandra, J. - This is a reference by the Civil and Sessions Judge Kanpur, recommending that the conviction and sentence passed on Lajta Prasad be quashed and a regular retrial ordered. 2. Lalta Prasad has peen convicted u/s 294, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30/. He was accused of uttering indecent remarks at young girls and ladies at the Vivek Talkies at Kanpur on 6-5-1964 at about 9.15 p.m. Lalta Prasad had denied the charge and alleged that he had a dispute with the constable when he tried to break the queue for purchasing the ticket at the second cinema show at the booking window and that the constable thereafter arrested him and falsely implicated him 3. The learned Magistrate tried the case summarily. It is clear from the evidence on record that Lalta Prasad is a permanent government employee at the Power House, Kanpur. The alleged offence involves moral turpitude and his conviction would amount to his dismissal. There is no doubt that Section 260 Code of Criminal Procedure gave the Magistrate power to try the accused summarily. But Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the Magistrate will try him in a summary way if he thinks it fit. Sub-section (2) of the same section further provides that when in the course of a summary trial it appears that the case is one which is of a character which renders it undesirable that it should be tried summarily the Magistrate shall recall any witness, who may have been examined and to proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided by this Code. It is clear from the record that the Magistrate had known during the course of the trial that Lalta Prasad was a permanent government employee. The Magistrate should have, therefore, known that his conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude would involve his dismissal. In these circumstances a Magistrate would be expected to know that it was undesirable that the accused should be tried summarily. In fact, it has been repeatedly held by the various High Courts of India that summary procedure, though legal, was most inappropriate in cases in which government servants were concerned as accused persons because their conviction was likely to result in their dismissal from service which was a serious loss to them, wide Robert John v. Emperor AIR 1932 Lah. 188, Emperor Vs. 188, Emperor Vs. Rustomji Mancherji, AIR 1921 Bom 370 and Subramanya Aiyar v. Queen ILR Mad 396. With respect I agree with the view taken in these cases. In Emperor Vs. Bashir, AIR 1929 All 267 (1) this Court held that: Though it might be legal to use summary procedure in trying a particular case it did not always follow that it was desirable in every case, for an offence which might seem very grave when regarded only from the point of view of the section applicable, may be in the light of its particular circumstances of a trivial nature, whereas, on the other hand, the consequences following on conviction of what is in itself a trivial offence may be so grave as to render a summary trial unsuitable. In another case Sachidanand v. State 1956 AWR 9 this Court again held that though the summary trial was legal yet it was not desirable as the conviction was likely to result in their dismissal from service. 4. There is consequently not the slightest doubt that Sri S.D. Rai, Judicial Officer, Kanpur, should have followed the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 260, Code of Criminal Procedure and as soon as he knew that the accused was a permanent government employee should have recalled the witnesses, who had been examined, and proceeded to re-hear the case in a regular manner. It appears that Sri S.D. Rai has not only failed to follow in a sensible manner the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure and its interpretation by the various High Courts of India and this Court, has also gone out of his way in criticising the remarks of a higher Court than his own. It seems that the Magistrate has a greater regard for saving money than for doing justice. When the law has been clearly interpreted by this Court it was his duty to follow the law regardless of the fact that recalling the witnesses for further examination and trying the case in a regular manner could have entailed some expenses to the State. A Magistrate should know that it is his primary duty when acting as a Court to do justice and not to be led away by extraneous considerations. 5. This is clearly a case in which the conviction should be quashed. A Magistrate should know that it is his primary duty when acting as a Court to do justice and not to be led away by extraneous considerations. 5. This is clearly a case in which the conviction should be quashed. The reference is accepted and the conviction and sentence passed on Lalta Prasad are quashed and the case sent back for a retrial in a regular manner to the District Magistrate, who will either try the case himself or send it to a Magistrate (other than Sri S.D. Rai) competent to try the same. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded. Case remanded.