ORDER This is an application by one Chaman Lal under Section 526, Criminal Procedure Code, for the transfer of the case from the Court of Shri A. Jindal, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. 2. The petitioner was apparently challaned by the traffic police under Sections 88/ 118-A, Motor Vehicles Act, and was tried by the learned Magistrate mentioned above. After the examination of the petitioner under Section 342, Criminal P.C., the learned Magistrate summoned a postman as a Court witness under Section 540 of the Code and thereafter, without further examining the accused-petitioner, the learned Magistrate pronounced orders convicting the petitioner and awarded to him the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month with a fine of Rs. 100/-. 3. The petitioner took the matter on appeal to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge who allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the learned Magistrate directing the accused to appear in the trial Court on 8-12-1967. It seems that in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, no prayer was made for sending the case back for further proceedings to some other Court, but when the accused appeared in the trial Court after remand he expressed his desire to move an application for the transfer of the case to the Court of some other competent Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge declined to transfer the case and the petitioner has now approached this Court as observed earlier. Some allegations have been made about the Magistrate having used strong language towards the accused person, but I have not been able to persuade myself to attach much importance to those averments. 4. The learned counsel Shri M.K. Chawla, who very kindly agreed to assist the Court as amicus curiae, because the accused-petitioner had represented himself to be too poor to afford to engage an advocate, has submitted with certain emphasis that the learned Magistrate having already expressed his opinion on the merits of the appraisal of the prosecution evidence, the accused reasonably apprehends that if the same learned Magistrate hears the case now and decides it, he would in all probability stick to his old opinion expressed prior to the remand. I am not inclined to attach conclusive importance to this contention, though it may possess some surface plausibility because, in my opinion, a judicial officer in our set up is expected to be trained enough to keep himself appropriately detached from and insulated against such temptations. I think the learned Magistrate in this case would not find it difficult after examining the accused and after taking into account any defence evidence which the accused may lawfully choose to produce, to endeavour conscientiously, as enjoined by law, to appraise the material on the record without any preconceived notions about the merits of the case based on his earlier opinion and would assess the evidence in the judicial scales uninfluenced by the opinion expressed before remand. 5. But that is not all. This morning, I had before me an application for contempt of Court by this very petitioner against the learned Magistrate, based on certain allegations relating to perhaps what is stated to have transpired in that Court after the admission of the present transfer application in this Court. That application for contempt of Court was dismissed as misconceived, but, in my opinion, in this background, it would be only fair, proper and expedient in the interest of justice that the case against the present accused-petitioner is finally adjudicated upon by some other competent Court. It is unnecessary to observe that such subsequent events can always legitimately be taken into account by this Court in considering the expediency in the larger cause of justice, and indeed it is this Court's duty to do so if the dictates of justice so demand. Fairness as indeed also seeming fairness, in judicial process is to be ensured even if the occasion to do so arises from the accused having been misled into doing something which he would have been well advised to avoid. This Court has to take an overall view of all that has happened and to consider its possible ultimate reaction on the faith and confidence which the judicial process is expected to inspire in the minds of the accused persons. This order, I, however, must clarify, is not to serve as a precedent for future in any comparable circumstances and this order is being made on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. It also must not be understood to reflect on the judicial integrity and impartiality of the learned Magistrate. This order, I, however, must clarify, is not to serve as a precedent for future in any comparable circumstances and this order is being made on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. It also must not be understood to reflect on the judicial integrity and impartiality of the learned Magistrate. It may, however, be pointed out that this Court has, to an extent, been influenced by the fact that in Delhi the Judiciary has not yet been separated from the executive, though its importance has long since been recognised, with the result that sub-conscious administrative influence in judicial thinking appears to be likely to inhere in such a set-up. 6. For the reasons foregoing, I direct that the case against the petitioner be transferred to the Court of some other competent Magistrate who will start from the stage of the examination of the accused under Section 342, Criminal P.C., and to this, both the counsel before me have expressly agreed. Of course if the accused wants to produce additional defence evidence, his prayer would be considered in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Magistrate on 25-3-1968 when this case would be considered in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Magistrate on 25-3-1968 when this case would be transferred to some other competent Court for further proceedings in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. I must before concluding thank Shri M.K. Chawla for the assistance rendered by him as amicus curiae in this case. Petition allowed.