JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This is a reference u/s 438, Code of Criminal Procedure made by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Cuttack, recommending the quashing of an order dated 30-8-1969 passed by the trial Court. The trying magistrate in this case is the Subordinate Judge cum Magistrate First Class, Jajpur. He is thus a senior Judicial Officer. The case was one u/s 147, 337 and 149, Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) withdrew the case from the file of the S.D.M. (Judicial) by his order dated 21.4.1969 and transferred it to the Court of Shri B. Patnaik, Subordinate Judge cum Magistrate, First Class Jajpur for trial in accordance with law. I do not have the observations of the learned Sessions Judge made on the notes of inspection which are referred to in the order dated 21.4.1969, but obviously there was some observation which need the transfer of the case to a competent Court. After the case was received on transfer on 24.4.1969 non-bailable warrant was ordered to issue against the accused persons as they were not in attendant on 15.5.1969, some accused persons entered appearance and for the appearance of others time was granted till 10-7-1969. The accused persons were again absent and, therefore, non-bailable warrant was issued fixing the case to 7-8-1969, the following order was passed: Accused persons are absent, N.B.W. not back. Send a, letter to the concerned Officer-in-Charge requiring his report as to whether N.B.Ws. can at all be executed by him, if so, the date of such execution. If no reply is received, the case shall be disposed of. Call on 23.8.1969 for orders. On 23.8.1969, the following order was passed: No reply is received from the concerned officer in charge. Put up on 30.8.1969 for further orders as P.O. is on C.L. On 30.8.1969, the impugned order was passed. I must say that it is difficult to read the order-sheet. I am given to understand that the learned Subordinate Judge has a stenographer. The order-sheet of the case is obviously maintained to be read not only by the Magistrate who records the proceedings, but also by all Courts who would be required in performance of their duties under the law to read. I am given to understand that the learned Subordinate Judge has a stenographer. The order-sheet of the case is obviously maintained to be read not only by the Magistrate who records the proceedings, but also by all Courts who would be required in performance of their duties under the law to read. If the learned Magistrate is not in a position to write the order-sheet properly and in a legible manner, assistance of the stenographer should normally have been taken. It is difficult for me also to say whether it is in the hand-writing of the Magistrate, because I find some difference in the writing of the order-sheet and the signature. In case the order was being dictated to a person whose hand was not legible, it is not understood why it was not written out either by the Magistrate him self if he had a legible hand or as I have already indicated why the assistance of the stenographer was not taken. As I am proposing administrative action in the matter, I do not propose : to deal with this aspect further in this case. 2. I cannot lose sight of the fact that the order in question is not written in proper English. There are several mistakes in the small order which is impugned in this case. As long as I Court?s proceedings are carried on in the English language mistakes, cannot be permitted. The learned Magistrate should have been very careful to see that the order-sheet was properly maintained and was written in proper English as it should have been. 3. As I have already indicated, the case came to this Magistrate because it was not being properly looked after in the Court of the preceding Magistrate. The order dated 21.4.1969 gives me the impression that the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) selected this Magistrate as the trial Court because he thought he would be the proper Court to deal with the matter. I In that background it is not at all possible to appreciate the attitude with which the transferee Magistrate has dealt with the case. Certainly the offences, were of a serious type and in case the officer-in-charge of the Police Station had not taken proper action it was his duty to draw the notice of the superior police officers. Under the law the hands of the Magistrate are long. Certainly the offences, were of a serious type and in case the officer-in-charge of the Police Station had not taken proper action it was his duty to draw the notice of the superior police officers. Under the law the hands of the Magistrate are long. He could have even taken action under the Police Act for non-compliance of legitimate orders of the Court and hauled up the police officer for his delinquency. The Magistrate should, not have felt helpless in the matter and should not "have been so non-cooperative in discharge of his duties as a Judicial officer so as to drop the proceeding and discharge the accused persons because the warrant of arrest had not been executed. If the police officer was ineffective and was not alive to his duties it is the duty of the Magistrate to correct him and he cannot condone his lapses and discharge the accused persons thereby failing to administer justice in accordance with law. 4. I am strongly of the opinion that the learned Magistrate has failed to discharge the duties of a Magistrate as conferred under the law and it is a fit case where he should be severely ensured. Steps should be taken to find out whether magisterial power would be continued with him any further and if the Court is satisfied on the administrative side that he should not be continued with magisterial power, immediate action should be taken to withdraw the magisterial power from this senior judicial officer. It is a slur on the administration of justice that this attitude is being taken by senior judicial officers in discharge of judicial duty. 5. I have no option after all that I have said but to quash the impugned order. The impugned order is quashed. The learned Additional District Magistrate is directed to transfer this call to another appropriate Magistrate to deal with it hence forward. The transferee Magistrate shall proceed from the Stage the proceeding was on 30.8-1969.