DAVE, J.—This reference comes on the report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Jodhpur, dated the 5th of December, 1961. 2. The facts giving rise to it are that accused Anand Raj presented a revision application in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, against the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur, dated the 28th of May, 1961, whereby he had ordered criminal original case No. 25 of 1961 (State Vs. Anand Raj) to be withdrawn from the court of Shri A. V. Ganesan, Assistant Collector and Magistrate (Under Training) Jodhpur and to be transferred to the court of Magistrate First Class No. 1, Jodhpur. The revision application was based on the ground that the order of the Additional District Magistrate, which was sought to be impugned, was improper and not in accordance with law, since he had given no reasons for transferring the case, as required by sec. 52 8(5), Criminal P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the ground on which the revision application was founded was correct. He has recommended that the District Magistrate, Jodhpur, may be directed either to try the case himself or to send it on to the file of Shri A.V. Ganesan, who was trying the case at the time of its transfer by the Additional District Magistrate. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also forwarded to this Court an explanation given by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur, for transferring the case. It is clear from the perusal of the said explanation that the Additional District Magistrate has simply stated that he had transferred the case on administrative grounds. 4. It may be observed that the explanation given by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur, is very unsatisfactory. He ought to have made it clear what particular administrative reasons led him to transfer the case, specially when the order-sheet of the case showed that it was ripe for arguments. It may be pointed out that sub-sec. (5) of sec. 528 Cr. P. C. clearly lays down that a Magistrate making an order regarding transfer of the case under that section must record in writing his reasons for making the same. Sec. 528 Cr. It may be pointed out that sub-sec. (5) of sec. 528 Cr. P. C. clearly lays down that a Magistrate making an order regarding transfer of the case under that section must record in writing his reasons for making the same. Sec. 528 Cr. P. C. no doubt gives a discretion to the District Magistrate or the Sub Divisional Magistrate to transfer a case from one competent court to another but it must be appreciated that the wider the discretion the more carefully it should be exercised. This section does not empower the transferring court to use its discretion arbitrarily. It is a judicial discretion and should, therefore, be exercised on good grounds and the grounds must be stated in writing. The very fact that the legislature has made it incumbent upon the transferring court to record its reasons in writing for making a transfer order shows that the power should not be exercised lightly. The law lays down a responsibility on the transferring court to consider and weigh the reasons for transferring the case and it further lays down a duty that the court must record its reasons in writing so that the parties concerned and the higher court may be able to understand why the transfer was made. The perusal of the record of the present case shows that the learned Additional District Magistrate and the District Magistrate nave, in turns, made a gross misuse of their powers by transferring the case from one court to another on different dates without caring for the inconvenience of the parties, witnesses and other concerned with the case. 5. It appears from the record that the challan was put up in court No. 1 of Magistrate First Class, Jodhpur, on 1st July, 1959. It was being tried by the said Magistrate till 16th May, 1960, when it was adjourned to 20th May, 1960, for defence evidence. The order-sheet of 19th May, 1960, next shows that the case was transferred by order of the Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur, to the court of Shri G.S. Darda, Magistrate (Under Training) without giving any ground. It may be pointed out that a case which had reached a stage when only defence evidence was to be recorded ought not to have been transferred without good grounds and specially to the court of a Magistrate who was only under training. It may be pointed out that a case which had reached a stage when only defence evidence was to be recorded ought not to have been transferred without good grounds and specially to the court of a Magistrate who was only under training. The order-sheet dated 25th July, 1960, further shows that the case was transferred by order of the District Magistrate from the court of Shri G.S. Darda, Magistrate(Under Training) to the court of Another Magistrate, Shri A.V. Ganesan, who was also under training at that time. This time also no reasons were given why the case was transferred from the court of one Magistrate (Under Training) to the court of another Magistrate (Under Training). The perusal of orders-sheet dated 19th September, 1960, shows that it was transferred by order of the District Magistrate dated 17th September, 1960, to the court of Magistrate First Class Jodhpur. It is again not clear why the case was withdrawn and transferred this time. The order-sheet dated 24th December, 1960, shows that the case was again transferred by order of the District Magistrate dated 319th December, 1960, to the court of Shri S.D. Arhat without any grounds on record. The order-sheet dated 1st May, 1961, next shows that the case was again transferred from the court of Shri S.D. Arhat to that of Shri A.V. Ganesan. It may be mentioned at this stage that the accused showed commendable patience in not challenging so many orders of transfer, even though he was shunted from one court to another, as if the authorities were dealing with a mere shuttle-cock. Thereafter, when the case was again transferred from the court of Shri A.V. Ganesan by order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 28th May, 1961, the accused challenged its correctness by a revision application filed by him in the court of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The record shows that even after the said order was challenged, the case was transferred twice as per order-sheets dated 7th July, 1961, and 5th August, 1961. 6. I am constrained to observe that the facts narrated above show a very sorry state of affairs and it appears that the transferring courts are either unaware of the evil consequences of such frequent transfers of cases or they have not cared to think of the results. 6. I am constrained to observe that the facts narrated above show a very sorry state of affairs and it appears that the transferring courts are either unaware of the evil consequences of such frequent transfers of cases or they have not cared to think of the results. It may be pointed out that frequent transfers of cases not only tend to spoil them but they also cause a good deal of harassment to the parties, the witnesses and others concerned with the cases. Moreover, the transferring courts lay themselves open to uncharitable criticism from both the parties. In such cases it may be alleged from the side of the complainant that the transfers have been made to spoil the cases and help the accused by delay and harassment to the complainant and his witnesses. From the side of the accused, it may be urged that transfers have been made to harass them. I do not mean to say that in the present case the transferring courts were guided by any ulterior motive but it cannot be denied that no good reason has been given to justify even one transfer, not to say of eight. A petty case of this nature should have ordinarily finished in three or four hearings, but it has protracted for 2-1/2 years. As early as in 1951 this Court had in Abdul Samad Vs. State (1) drawn the attention of the transferring courts that cases should not be transferred without good reasons and that those reasons must be stated in writing. It is therefore high time that it should be appreciated by such courts that frequent transfers of this kind and those too without any judicial discretion and without any reasons in writing are tantamount to gross misuse of the power of the court and a repetition of such a feature must be avoided. I would have certainly set aside the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate dated 28th May, 1961, under reference, but, as pointed out above, it already stands vacated, because the case was thereafter transferred to the court of Shri Mirchandani as per order-sheet dated 7th July, 1961, and again to the court of the Magistrate First Class No. 1 as per order-sheet dated 5th August, 1961. I would have also set aside the last order dated 5th August, 1961, since it again contained no ground for transferring the case, but I find that if that order is set aside, the parties would be put to inconvenience. Now, the case has somehow gone to the same court of Magistrate First Class, No. 1 from which it was originally transferred in May 1960. 7. I, therefore, accept the reference with the modification that the last transfer order dated 5th August, 1961, is maintained, because the case has gone back to the court which had commenced its trial. The District Magistrate and the Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur, are directed not to transfer the case hereafter unless there are some very strong grounds which must be recorded in writing.