Gupta, J.—This is an application for transfer in a criminal case pending against the petitioner in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Jaisalmer, for an offence under sec. 406 of the Penal Code. 2. It appears that the petitioner had collected a sum of Rs. 101/- as subscription to the Congress funds from one Pem Raj Jetha of Bhadli, Jaisalmer but did not deposit it in the local Congress office. Somehow the matter reached the police who investigated into the matter and put up a challan under sec. 406 of the Penal Code before the First Class Magistrate, Jaisalmer. During the pendency of the case before the Magistrate, one Satya Deo, said to be the Secretary of the Jaisalmer Congress, was examined on behalf of the prosecution on the 10th of February, 1950. Daring his examination he produced a receipt bearing the No. 204 and showing that the sum of Rs. 101/- had been deposited. After his statement was over and the witness had been discharged, he was asked to produce the receipt-book containing the receipt No. 204 but no date was fixed for his doing so. After the charge had been framed against the accused, the witness was, at the instance of the accused, re-summoned for his further cross-examination on the 12th of April, 1950. On this date, the witness appeared but did not bring the receipt-book. After the witness had been re-cross-examined by the accused, the Prosecuting Inspector instead of re-examining the witness made an application seeking permission for cross-examining him on the ground that the witness had been won over by the accused and that he had turned hostile as was clear from the fact that the witness had stated in the police that the accused had not deposited the amount with the Congress, while in the Court he had deposed that Bhanwar Lal had deposited the money and passed a receipt of the amount which was produced by him, but did not produce in the Court the receipt-book containing the receipt though he had been asked to produce the same. The learned Magistrate passed a long order on this application of the Prosecuting Inspector and made an observation to the following erfect:- "Again, under such circumstances, it can be presumed that the witness Satya Deo was not producing papers in order to shield the accused Bhanwar Lal. The learned Magistrate passed a long order on this application of the Prosecuting Inspector and made an observation to the following erfect:- "Again, under such circumstances, it can be presumed that the witness Satya Deo was not producing papers in order to shield the accused Bhanwar Lal. The application of the Prosecuting Inspector for declaring the witness Satya Deo hostile is granted under s. 154 of the Evidence Act." 3. The transfer is prayed for on three grounds. Firstly, it is said that the Magistrate Shri B. N. Goswami is prejudiced against the accused because a number of complaints were made against him on behalf of the Praja-mandal of which the petitioner was once the Secretary and later on the President, when Shri Goswami was the Textile Commissioner in the Price Control Department of the former State of Jaisalmer. Secondly, it is said that the Collector of the District, Shri Mangi Lal, was taking a personal interest in the case, that he had made inquiries from the Secretary, District Congress, even before the case was registered before the police, and that Shri Mangi Lal had appeared as a prosecution witness in this case. It is further alleged that complaints had been made on behalf of the Congress, Jaisalmer, against the Collector with regard to his food-grain policy and other matters and that, therefore the Magistrate, who is a subordinate of the Collector, is interested in this case against the accused. Lastly, it is said that the Magistrate who is subordinate to the Collector is playing in the hands of the Prosecuting Inspector and passes orders as desired by the latter. It is particularly mentioned that on the 10th of February, 1950, after the statement of Shri Satya Deo, Secretary, District Congress Committee, Jaisalmer, had been completed and he had been discharged, he was asked to produce certain documents, that when on the 12th of April, 1950, Satya Deo appeared for re-cross-examination by the accused, he was asked about the documents and when he stated that they were not with him, the Magistrate lost his temper and observed: "Why should not chits be affixed to your Congress office? The police had committed a mistake and not taken possession of the documents beforehand. You want to hide the truth. You are a Her and want to shield the accused wrongly. The police had committed a mistake and not taken possession of the documents beforehand. You want to hide the truth. You are a Her and want to shield the accused wrongly. Certainly, there is some thing in the documents." It was further alleged that after this the Magistrate and the Prosecuting Inspector held consultations whereupon the Prosecuting Inspector said to the Magistrate that he was declaring the witness hostile. Thereupon, the Magistrate asked the Prosecuting Inspector to submit an application which was promptly made whereupon the counsel for the accused requested for an opportunity to address arguments before the witness was declared hostile but the Magistrate paid no heed to it and declared the witness hostile with the remark that he wanted to shield the accused. It is said that on account of the above reasons the accused had a reasonable apprehension that they would not get a fair trial before Shri Goswami. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the absence of the direction that the witness was to produce the receipt-book or other papers on a particular date, the witness was not bound to produce the same on the 12th of April, 1950. The application of the prosecuting Inspector to have the witness declared hostile under the particular circumstances was not justified and the aforesaid observation of the Magistrate was uncalled for. He strenuously contended that the direction of the Magistrate requiring the witness to produce a receipt-book and other papers without fixing any date for their production was meaningless. The witness, when he was summoned for re-cross-examination, was not required by the summon issued to him to produce the receipt-book in question or any other paper. It was strenuously argued by the learned counsel that the above mentioned observation of the Magistrate dearly showed that he was prejudiced against the accused and that the accused could have no|hope of getting a fair trial from him. 5. The learned Magistrate has submitted a long explanation and has generally denied all the allegations. He has not specifically denied his holding consultations with the Prosecuting Inspector, the Prosecuting Inspector s declaring that the witness had turned hostile, his asking the Prosecuting Inspector to make an application, the counsel for the petitioner requesting him to hear arguments before declaring the witness hostile and his ignoring the request. He has not specifically denied his holding consultations with the Prosecuting Inspector, the Prosecuting Inspector s declaring that the witness had turned hostile, his asking the Prosecuting Inspector to make an application, the counsel for the petitioner requesting him to hear arguments before declaring the witness hostile and his ignoring the request. He has not even denied that he allowed the Prosecuting Inspector to cross-examine the witness Satya Deo with an observation that the witness wanted to shield the accused. In fact, as stated above, the learned Magis-trate has, in his order dated the 12th of April, 1950, observed that under the circumstances, it could be presumed that the witness Satya Deo was not producing the documents with a view to shield the accused Bhanwar Lal. Courts should be very cautious in making observations in the course of a trial, because, while disposing of a transfer-petition, the superior Courts have to see whether or not the particular observation male by the Court will raise a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the accused that they would not have a fair trial in the Court. Observations like the one mentioned above must necessarily raise such an apprehension in the mind of the accused. Moreover, the observation complained of appears to be uncalled for. On the 10th of February, 1950, after the evidence of Satya Deo had been closed, he was asked to produce documents but no date was fixed. For two months he was not called upon to produce there quired documents. In the summon that was issued to the witness on the nth of Aprils 1950 (No. 1/51 on the file of the Magistrate), he was not required to produce any document. Under the circumstances, the witness was not expected to bring any document on the 12th of April, 1950. 5. The first two grounds mentioned in the application do not deserve any notice but in view of the serious allegations mentioned above that are made on behalf of the accused and are not specifically denied by the Magistrate, this Court has to see what the cumulative effect of the incident is likely to be in the mind of the person in the position of an accused and whether a reasonable apprehension has been raised in his mind that he would not get a fair trial in the Court of Shri Goswami. I am satisfied that the case should be transferred to some other Court. I, therefore, order that the case be transferred to the Court of the Extra Magistrate, Jaisalmer.