Temperament Basic Attribute Of Judges, Can't Project Ill-Feelings Towards Litigants, Law Enforcing Agencies: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri recently quashed an order of Judicial Magistrate which directed a Police Officer to appear personally before his Court to file show-cause as well as execution report of a warrant of arrest against a medical officer, failing which he shall be liable to face penal consequences.

While quashing the order, the single judge bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed:

“I would like to record at the outset that temperament is not only the essential but basic attribute of a Judge. If judicial act and conduct expresses ill-temperament and projected ill-feeling towards any person who are coming to the Court to seek justice as well as the persons who are responsible for enforcement of law, in other words, Law Enforcing Agency, there shall be occurrence of failure of justice.”

The facts state that a bailable warrant was issued against a charge-sheeted witness namely Dr. Mithilesh Halder through the Inspector-in-Charge (Petitioner), Burdwan Police Station.

The petitioner submitted a report stating before the concerned magistrate that the said medical officer was on earn leave and was not present in the city of Burdwan.

However, the magistrate did not consider the report of the petitioner and issued the impugned order dated March 15, 2023 directing the petitioner to appear before him personally on March 17, 2023 to show cause on affidavit as well as the execution report of warrant of arrest against the medical officer.

The magistrate further directed that deviation from the impugned order will make the petitioner responsible and liable to face consequence under Section 166A (Public Servant disobeying direction under Law) and Section 174 (Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant) of IPC including issuance of warrant against him under Section 374 of CrPC.

The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the impugned order.

The court observed that the concerned magistrate did not take any report from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Alipurduar as to whether the technical and electrical arrangement has been made in his office for transmission of outstation warrants and other processes.

The court further stated that the concerned magistrate jumped to the conclusion that the bailable warrant of arrest issued against the witness (Medical Officer) was served electronically to the present petitioner and he refused to act upon it.

The court noted:

“The learned Magistrate also did not consider as to whether the warrantee could be produced before his Court when he was out of station.”

The court thus set aside the impugned order and directed the concerned magistrate to issue fresh process against the medical officer through the petitioner giving him at least fortnight time to execute the process and produce the witness before his Court for recording evidence.

Case Title: Sukhamoy Chakraborty v. The State of West Bengal

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 72

Coram: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

Click Here to Read/Download Order