Order The petitioner, Tammineedi Satyanarayana, is the accused in C.C. No. 2 of 1960 on the file of the Village Panchayat Court, Achanta. He has filed this petition (citing section 526, Criminal Procedure Code) praying for transfer of that case from that Court to the Court of any Judicial Second Class Magistrate or any other Panchayat Court for disposal. The respondent is the complainant. The petitioner is permitted to convert this petition into one under clause 29 of the Letters Patent by means of an order in Criminal M.P. No. 981 of 1960. The main objection raised on behalf of the complainant-respondent is that this petition is not maintainable according to law, as section 77 of the Madras Village Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is a bar to its maintainability. Section 77 of the said Act runs as follows: “77 (1). The provisions of sections 403, 476, 476-A and 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, shall apply to a Village Court. (2) Save as provided in sub- section (1) nothing contained in the said Code shall apply to a Village Court.” Clause 29 of the Letters Patent for the High Court of Madras, which applies to this High Court also, provides: “29. And we do further ordain that the said High Court shall have power to direct the transfer of any criminal case or appeal from any Court to any other Court of equal or superior jurisdiction, and also to direct the preliminary investigation or trial of any criminal case by any Officer or Court otherwise competent to investigate or try it, though such case belongs in ordinary course to the jurisdiction of some other Officer or Court.” Under this clause, this High Court has the power to transfer the case unaffected by the fact that under section 77 of the Act, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code or transfer, i.e., section 526, Criminal Procedure Code, are not made applicable. The effect of section 77 of the Act is that this Court cannot order transfer of the case under its powers under section 526, Criminal Procedure Code. But all the same, the power to transfer under Clause 29 of the Letters Patent (which is independent of section 526, Criminal Procedure Code), remains. In Sivakolandai v. Ammayan [1902] I.L.R. 26 Mad. The effect of section 77 of the Act is that this Court cannot order transfer of the case under its powers under section 526, Criminal Procedure Code. But all the same, the power to transfer under Clause 29 of the Letters Patent (which is independent of section 526, Criminal Procedure Code), remains. In Sivakolandai v. Ammayan [1902] I.L.R. 26 Mad. 394 a question arose whether, under section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a District or Sub-Divisional Magistrate had power to transfer any criminal case pending before a Village Magistrate or whether the power of transfer was limited to the cases viz., petty thefts which a Village Magistrate is empowered by Regulation IV of 1821 to try and punish. Their Lordships held as follows: “We, therefore, hold that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no power to transfer the cases of insult before the Village Magistrate to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Chidambaram, and we set aside his order. As, however, the transfer is on the merits advisable, we, in exercise of our powers under section 29 of the Letters Patent, transfer the case to the Sub-Magistrate specified in the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order.” In Dhirjoo v. Kamna A.I.R. 1950 Him. Pra. 40 it was held by the Himachal Pradesh High Court that a Panchayat constituted under the Punjab Village Panchayat Act, 1939, was a ‘Court’ and was, in the exercise of its Criminal Jurisdiction, an inferior criminal Court. So, I find that this Court is competent to transfer the case as prayed for under clause 29 of the Letters Patent in spite of section 77 of the Act. In regard to a petition to transfer a case from one Magistrate to another, the question to be considered is whether it is possible, from the accused's point of view, to say that his apprehension is not reasonable. In Behari Day v. Ashutosh Ghosh A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 981, the effective ground pressed for transfer of the case from the Court of the Magistrate was that the Magistrate's brother had been active in certain elctioneering matters and that the complainant had been closely connected with the Magistrate's brother in that respect and that the Magistrate himself was assisting his brother in the electioneering by way of canvassing. It was held under those circumstances that the accused's apprehension of unconscious injustice was not unreasonable. It was held under those circumstances that the accused's apprehension of unconscious injustice was not unreasonable. In the present case, the petitioner apprehends that he would not have a fair trial because he contested the recent election against Shri Nekkanti Nageswara Rao, the present Vice-President and took active part in the elections in support of his party against the party of the present Vice-President. The circumstances of the case seem to justify that the accused's apprehension is reasonable. I therefore allow this petition and transfer the case C.C. No. 2 of 1960, on the file of the Village Panchayat Court, Achanta, to the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Palakole. A.S.R.-----Petition allowed. Case transferred.