JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application for transfer of a trial pending in the Court of Mr. Abdul Kadir Ali, Magistrate, First Class, to the Court of some other competent Magistrate. It appears from an affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants that the police sent up a charge-sheet A, recommending the prosecution of six persons for an offence under S. 420, I.P.C. Two out of the six accused were produced and stood their trial before Mr. Abdul Kadir Ali. The other four could not be found. The two who were tried were convicted, and after their conviction there out of the four remaining accused surrendered themselves and are now on trial before the same Mr. Abdul Kadir Ali, in the course of his judgment in the previous case, the Magistrate delivered himself of two sentences, and it is these two sentences which are said to create an apprehension in the minds of the present accused that the mind of the Magistrate is prejudiced against them. In the first sentence, the learned Magistrate says: “There is ample evidence on the record to show that the two accused and their four companions took the girl to the complainant's house, represented her as a Brahmini, and after taking Ss. 100 from the complainant married her to his son.” The second sentence is to the effect that the girl in question gave her evidence in a very straightforward manner. She stated that she was taken to the complainant's house by the two accused and their four companions. 2. In both the sentences there is nothing to show that the learned Magistrate had come to any judicial finding that the four persons who were with the two accused, who were convicted in the first trial, were any one or more of the present accused. There is nothing to show that the Magistrate applied his mind to any act performed by these four accused, which would definitely stamp them as persons whose case had been considered by him and about whom he was satisfied that they were one or more of the present accused. An application for transfer was made to the District Magistrate and on that application the District Magistrate has said that he has no ground for thinking that Mr. An application for transfer was made to the District Magistrate and on that application the District Magistrate has said that he has no ground for thinking that Mr. Abdul Kadir Ali, when considering the evidence, will, in any way, be affected by any remarks that he may have made in the previous case. Mr. Abdul Kadir Ali himself says that so far as the present accused are concerned, he has not made up his mind and is not in any way prejudiced. All these circumstances combined lead me to the conclusion that this is a case in which I should not interfere. The learned vakil for the applicants referred me to two cases, one being Farzand Ali v. Hanuman Prasad, [1897] 19 All. 64 and the other Ram, Kishan Das v. Emperor, [1930] 35 All. 5 : 17 I.C. 567 : 13 Cr. L.J. 823, in which it has been laid down that the question which the Court has to consider in granting transfer is not merely the question whether there has been any real bias in the mind of the presiding Magistrate against the accused, but also the further question whether incidents may not have happened, which, though they may be susceptible of explanation and may have happened without there being any real bias in the mind of the Magistrate, are nevertheless such as are calculated to create in the mind of the accused a reasonable apprehension that he may not have a fair and impartial trial. In both the cases cited there were some incidents which had taken place and from which it appeared that the Magistrate trying the case might be biased against the accused. In the present case, no such incidents have been put forward, and I feel sure that if they had existed they would have been put forward. In a former case Adit Prasad v. Emperor decided by myself on 2nd July 1913, I held that transfer of a case should not necessarily be ordered simply because an accused person thinks that he would not get an impartial trial; but the real question to be considered is whether on the facts disclosed in the application for transfer, there arises a reasonable inference that the Magistrate who is seised of the case may be prejudiced willingly or unwillingly against the accused. The only ground on which a transfer could be supported in the present case is that it is made to appear to this Court that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in a particular criminal Court subordinate to this Court. Now I find myself unable on the facts stated in the application before me to draw a reasonable inference that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial in this case before Mr. Abdul Kadir Ali cannot be had. I should be unwilling to consider without stronger ground that a Magistrate of the standing and experience of Mr. Abdul Kadir Ali, if in the present trial something in the evidence gave ground for entertaining a doubt in favour of the accused, would be so prejudiced by his conclusions in the former case that he would not allow the benefit of such doubt to the accused in whose favour the doubt might arise. The application is dismissed.