George Knox, J.
1. A paper was presented apparently before the Munsarim of the Second Additional Judge's Court of Aligarh. It bears date the 12th of December 1916. It is paper No. 7A on the record. It is written in English, purports to be signed in Urdu by one Mathura Parsada bakalam khud. There is an endorsement upon the back of the paper. This endorsement is evidently by an India rubber stamp and so far as it is legible it runs thus:
Solemnly affirmed before me by Mathura Prasada who was identified by Babu Mohan Lai Tingal, a Pleader at this (here follows a word illegible) having the contents hereof admitted the same to be correct.
Nawal Kishore, Munsarim, Second Additional Judge's Court.
2. The allegations made in it are:
(a) I solemnly affirm on oath that A. Hamilton, Esq., I. C. S., Magistrate of Etah, is a Member and Chairman of the Sub-Committee of Buildings of the Municipal Board of Kasganj and that he took an active interest in sanctioning the prosecution of Balkishen appellant.
(b) I solemnly affirm on oath that the said Magistrate before commencing the trial of Balkishen appellant expressed his opinion to convict and fine him Rs. 150.
(c) I solemnly affirm on oath that the said Magistrate being overpowered with excitement caught hold of Balkishen's neck and gave him a rude push at the time of inspection of the locality.
3. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, holding that the first and second allegations were false and the allegation in the third paragraph exaggerated, came to the conclusion that there were good grounds for holding that Mathura Prasada had committed an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. He sent the case to the learned District Magistrate with a request that he should make it over for trial to one of his Subordinate Magistrates.
4. The application before me is an application for criminal revision against this order, on the ground that the order is not a proper one; that the affidavit filed is substantially true, and there is no statement in it which was wilfully false: that the applicant had not committed an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. As a Rule I never interfere with orders passed under Section 476 of the Oxide of Criminal Procedure. Those orders are orders passed by a possible officer for an offence which that officer considers to have been committed in the course of a judicial proceeding before him, and to be passed after a preliminary enquiry when necessary, but the case before me has evidently been so carelessly---I regret to have to use the word---considered that I am not prepared to confirm the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. I express no opinion of any kind upon the matters alleged in the so-called affidavit, beyond pointing out that the Joint Magistrate whose conduct is impugned has in an explanation given a totally different account of what took place. The case was eminently one in which a preliminary enquiry should have been made before an order was passed under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matters contained in the so-called affidavit and the explanation had not taken place before the Additional Sessions Judge. The so-called affidavit should have been rejected on the spot. I am informed that Mathura Prasada is not acquainted with English. The carelessness with which affidavits are taken by many Munsarims in the Courts below is a matter of experience and I have, in making inspections specially at Aligarh, called attention to this want of care. That the Munsarim should have considered that he was certifying to that affidavit by endorsing on it an India rubber stamp partly illegible and which, even if legible, would not show that the affidavit had been read and explained either by himself or by some other competent person in his presence and after he was satisfied that the person proposing to make the affidavit understands the contents thereof, speaks for itself. The words in each paragraph, I solemnly affirm on oath show that the Munsarim has no idea of what is required from him when be is making the certificate. There is not the slightest reason to infer from the India rubber stamp that Mathura. Prasada knew or had explained to him the contents of the affidavit or that he ever admitted that the statements contained in the affidavit were correct. It is moreover quite clear that the Munsarim has never discovered what is practically a clerical error in the stamp, 'having' for the word 'hearing.' Without any further comment, I again repeat that the ease called strongly for a preliminary enquiry and that preliminary enquiry should have been made. I also notice that the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted an explanation which very carefully and no doubt properly says that the matters detailed in it are matters to the recollection of the person making the explanation. This is not enough in a judicial enquiry.
6. I have passed by smaller matters of detail which will be found if the Munsarim takes the trouble to read Order XIX of the Book of Rules framed by the High Court of Judicature, N. W. P., under Section 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but they all show the extreme want of care with which affidavits are taken and acted upon in this Aligarh Court. For the above reasons I set aside the order of the 17th of March. The security, if 'furnished, will be discharged.