Judgment: 1. This Rule is directed against an order dated April 2, 1979, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24-Pargaans, Alipore, dismissing the complaint of the petitioner under S. 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 2. The complaint was lodged against Sri Shiv Kumar Khanna Special Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah and was based on the following material allegations 3. The complainant who is an Advocate, figured as an accused in Case No. C. 1163 of 1975, filed by his sister which was being tried by the Court, presided over by the accused/opposite party. On April 27, 1978 when Mussammat Jouhara Khatun was being examined in the said Court as a defence witness the petitioner whispered to his advocate to put certain questions, At this the accused displayed great annoyance and asked the Court constable to put the petitioner in the cage, meant for accuted persons, inside the Court room. Pursuant to the said direction, be was immediately put inside the case and was not permitted to be taken out till the cross-examination of Mussammat Jouhara Khatun was over. By filing the complaint the petitioner prayed for process against the accused/opposite party under S. 342 of the Indian Penal Code along with the complaint the order of the State Government sanctioning the prosecution under S. 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 24-Parganas Alipore, took cognizance upon the said complaint and transferred the same to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24-Parganas under S. 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The transferee court examined the complainant and a witness produced by him and by the impugned order dismissed the complaint on the ground that the allegations made against the accused/opposite party did not constitute an offence in view of S. 77 of the Indian Penal Code there being no material to show that be acted without any good faith. 5. The petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that the materials on record prima facie indicate that the accused maliciously put him in the cage meant for prisoner and thereby co-mitted an offence punishable under S. 342 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in observing that there was nothing to show that the accused had any malice against the petition or. In support of his contention the petitioner drew my attention to paragraphs 6 and 8 of the petition of complaint wherein the material allegations have been incorporated. In paragraph 6 it has been stated that the accused was recording the evidence in the case brought by his sister incorrectly which prompted him to file an application for recall of the witness Mussammat Jouhara Khatun. The opposite party refused to entertain the laid application a on returned it saying that the petitioner should call her as a defence witness. The petitioner was compelled to call the self-same witness earlier examined by the prosecution as P.W. 2, as defence witness. In this background the petitioner submitted that the incident that took place on April 27, 1978, which has been detailed in paragraph as has to be considered. the petitioner contended that he was an Advocate of the Court and at the material time when be was put inside the case was on bail. According to the petitioner all these facts and circumstances, together with the manner in which the accused put him in the lock-up while the witness was being examined, leave no manner of doubt that the opposite party acted in bad faith and S. 77 of the Indian Penal Code has no manner of application 6. Mr. Dutt, the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party submitted that while trying the care against the petitioner, the opposite party was entitled to keep the accused in the dock, more particularly because be felt that the proceedings of the Court was being disturbed and therefore no offence can be said to have been Committed by him under S. 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Dutt next submitted that there is no allegation or averment in the complaint to indicate absence of good faith and the learned Additional Chief judicial Magistrate was fully Justified in dismissing the complaint invoking the provisions of S. 77 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Dutt lastly submitted that even if it was assumed that the opposite party voluntarily restrained the petition from proceeding beyond certain circumscribed limits. Mr. Dutt lastly submitted that even if it was assumed that the opposite party voluntarily restrained the petition from proceeding beyond certain circumscribed limits. by keeping him confined in the Cage it Can not be laid that an offence under S. 342 of the Indian Penal Cods has been committed by the opposite party having regard to her that so long as the trial continued the accused, namely petitioner, had no right to come out of the cage. 7. Having heard the contentions of the respective parties and on going through the materials on record I am unable to accept the contentions of the petitioner. Under S. 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused or when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in presence of his pleader. There are however some exceptions to this rule as provided in Ss. 317 and 299 of the code of Criminal Procedure. As the cue which was being tried by the opposite party, did not come within any of such exceptions the evidence, was to be taken in presence of the accused who admittedly was present of the date in question. It is common knowledge that a separate enclosureorcage is earmarked within the Court room for placing the accused. of course, for adequate and sufficient reason the presiding officer of the Court may permit the accused to take his scat behind his lawyer at some other appropriate place within the Court room. But for such exceptional circumstances the accused is supported to be placed in the dock or enclosure meant for him. As it appears from the complaint itself the petitioner was allowed to stand behind his learned Advocate at the time of the trial to instruct him. Undoubtedly that was a privilege granted to the petitioner and if the learned Magistrate felt annoyed by certain core duct of the accused and decided to withdraw the privilege granted to him it cannot be said that the action of the opposite party displayed absence of good faith. It may be that some other Magistrate, placed in the same position might or could have shown greater restraint, but that by itself is no ground to hold that the opposite party acted in bad faith. 8. It may be that some other Magistrate, placed in the same position might or could have shown greater restraint, but that by itself is no ground to hold that the opposite party acted in bad faith. 8. In this connection reference may be made to S. 52 of the Indian Penal Code which defines "good faith" in a negative form. The definition given therein materially differs from the definition of good faith prescribed by the General Clauses Act While in the former absence of due care and attention means absence of good faith, the element of honesty have been introduced by the latter and good faith there in has been defined as a positive form. Since in the instant case we arc concerned with the Penal Code we have to rely on the definition given in S. 52 and as such in deciding the question whether the opposite party acted in good faith, we have to enquire whether be acted with the due care and attention. 8. On the materials on record I do not find anything from which it can be even prima facie informed that the opposite party acted without such care and attention. On the contrary, it is the petitioners own case that be was permitted to be taken out after the cross-examination of the Concerned witness was over, For all these consideration, I have no hesitation in holding and concurring with the finding of the learned Magistrate that there is no material on record to hold that there was absence of good faith on the part of the accused/opposite party. 9. Since this revisional application fails on this ground alone I need not discuss or answer the other question raised by Mr. Dutt. The Rule is accordingly discharged. Rule discharged.