JUDGMENT : Knox, J. This is an application for transfer of a case in which the offence is said to be an offence under section 285, read with section 109 of the Penal Code, 1860. No particular ground is given either in the application or in the affidavit as to why an order of transfer should be made. All that the affidavit says, is, that it is expedient in the ends of justice that the case should be transferred from the court of Syed Abu Mohammad to that of any other Magistrate, competent to try it, at Azamgarh. The affidavit does indeed say in paragraph 10 that the Magistrate Syed Abu Mohammad, has, in his committal order, expressed certain strong views against part of the petitioner's complaint. It also says that the petitioner intends to call Syed Abu Mohammad as his witness at the trial and that the deposition of Syed Abu Mohammad would be material for the purpose of establishing the guilt of the accused persons. It is noteworthy that in this case the complaint was instituted before a bench of Honorary Magistrates, that upon an application made by the accused, it was transferred to the court of Syed Abu Mohammad, and that now it is the so-called complainant who asks that it be transferred to the court of a third Magistrate. Presently it would be open to the accused to ask that the complaint be transferred to the court of a fourth Magistrate and so on. It is quite conceivable that as the case proceeds, the accused may think that the presiding Magistrate, into whose hands they have fallen, is prejudiced against them. However, it is not necessary to follow this up. The affidavit, which I must presume is an affidavit containing a true statement of facts, discloses that a very serious public offence has been committed and that the complainant's interest is, as regards that public offence, a very small matter indeed. If any offence has been committed, as set out in the affidavit, the case is certainly one which, in the interests of all concerned, should be conducted by the Public Prosecutor as a case falling under section 436 of the Penal Code, 1860, and I have little doubt that, after this expression of opinion, the learned Magistrate will see that the case is properly conducted by a public prosecutor. The offence disclosed in the affidavit is an offence cognizable by a Court of Sessions. It matters little whether this Magistrate has or has not on another occasion expressed himself strongly against the so-called complainant and it also matters little whether he is to be called as a witness or not. Both matters will come within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions, who can make the necessary orders. I see no cause of ordering this second transfer in the case. I maintain, as I have done on previous occasions, that when an order of transfer can be passed by the District Magistrate under section 528, it is the duty of the person who considers himself prejudiced to go first to the District Magistrate. I see no reason for an order of transfer in this case and I reject this application.