' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court, dated 22-12-1992, whereby it was directed that the remarks about inefficiency and shirking of duty be recorded in the A.C.R. Of the petitioner.
2. The petition is barred by 48 days. The petitioner in his application for condonation of delay has stated that he was not a party to the case before the High Court and had only submitted his explanation regarding delay in the proceedings pending before him. Neither the petitioner was present in the High Court on 22-12-1992, nor was he represented through a counsel, thus he was not aware of the order passed on that day. The delay is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.
3. The facts in brief are that respondent No,1 was challaned by the police and his case was pending in the Court of the petitioner. Respondent No,1 filed an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
Before the petitioner, but as that application was not disposed of, he approached the High Court.
The learned Single Judge in Chambers, while directing the Magistrate/petitioner to dispose of the application within two weeks, made the following remarks about his conduct:-- "The conduct of the Magistrate calls for censure. Application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was moved before him on 14-11-1991 and after hearing of arguments (oral, according to him, what he means by oral arguments, he must be a wise man to think of) the matter was kept lingering. He on innumerable dates of hearing adjourned the case for the complainant's counsel without realising that in criminal cases it is only the prosecutor on behalf of the State who is in charge of the case and the complainant's counsel via the courtesy of the actual prosecutor can address the Court. In this view of the matter, the case was unnecessarily adjourned and duty shirked. The remarks about inefficiency and shirking of duty be recorded in the A.C.R. Of the Magistrate. The District. Magistrate is also advised to have a look to his duties which certainly include the proper working of the- subordinate Courts."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the above order has been made without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and thus he was condemned unheard.
' Leave is granted to consider the contention of the learned counsel.