Order.-This petition under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is made by the accused in Sessions Case No. 88 of 1974 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Bijapur, for transfer. 2. The petition is supported by an affidavit filed by the advocate who defended the accused in the trial. As the affidavit contained serious allegations against the Presiding Officer, his remarks were called for. The learned Sessions Judge has denied the allegations as not correct. However, he has stated that if this Court is pleased the case may be transferred to another Court. 3. It is significant to note that the averments made in the affidavit filed before this Court were set out in the application made on behalf of the accused on 31st January, 1975 before the Sessions Judge, Bijapur. When a motion was made by the Advocate for the accused seeking adjournment to apply for the transfer of the case on the grounds mentioned in the application, the learned Sessions Judge has observed in the course of his order as follows: “….Without expressing any opinion about the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the application for adjournment (even though there is no provision, in the new Criminal Procedure Code to stop further proceedings) in the interest of justice, I withhold pronouncing the judgment, so that, he might be given an opportunity to be tried by another judge and get justice. The accused shall be in remand until further orders.” 4. If there was no truth in the allegations made in the application, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have denied them, in the order which he had passed. He had the earliest opportunity to do so. Failure to do so gives rise to a doubt about the veracity of the subsequent denial made by him. It is unnecessary to probe into this matter any further. Suffice it to say that the learned Sessions Judge, while administering criminal justice should remember that not only justice should be done but it should appear to have been done. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have overlooked this principle while dealing with this case. 5. It is unnecessary to probe into this matter any further. Suffice it to say that the learned Sessions Judge, while administering criminal justice should remember that not only justice should be done but it should appear to have been done. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have overlooked this principle while dealing with this case. 5. It may be pointed out that the procedure to be followed in a Sessions trial for taking evidence for the prosecution, acquittal, entering upon defence, arguments and judgment of acquittal or conviction are clearly laid down in sections 231,232,233, 234 and 235 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 6. Section 231, Criminal Procedure Code, lays down, that on the date fixed for recording evidence, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution; and he may in his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination. 7. Section 232 lays down, that if, after taking evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal. 8. Section 233 says: (1) Where the accused is not acquitted under section 232, he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof; (2) If the accused puts in any written statement, the Judge shall file it with the record; and (3) If the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. 9. 9. Section 234 says, that when the examination of the witness (if any) for the defence is complete, the prosecutor shall sum up his case and the accused or his pleader shall be entitled to reply: provided that where any point of law is raised by the accused or his pleader the prosecution may, with the permission of the Judge, make his submission with regard to such point of law. 10. Further, section 235 lays down that: (1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case; (2) If the accused is convicted the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of section 360, hear the accused on the question of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law. 11. The following note was made in order-sheet by the learned Sessions Judge, on 25th January, 1975. “Prosecution closed its evidence. Court time is over. Hence further proceedings on 27th January, 1975. Remand the accused.” On 27th January, 1975 the note reads: “For statement of accused. Accused statement recorded, arguments heard. Judgment on 28th January, 1975. Remand the accused.” On 28th January, 1975 the note reads: “Judgment not ready-same on 29th January, 1975. Remand the accused.” On 29th January, 1975 the note reads: “Judgment not ready. Accused questioned further in respect of the prosecution evidence. His statement recorded. The advocate of the accused further heard. Judgment on 30th January, 1975. Remand”. The note made on 30th January, 1975, reads: “The Court wants to hear the advocate for the accused under section 235, Criminal Procedure Code (new). Hence adjourned to 31st January, 1975. Remand the accused.” The note made by the Court on 27th January, 1975 indicates that the Court followed the procedure laid down in section 232, Criminal Procedure Code (new). Neither on 28th January, 1975 nor on 29th January, 1975 there is any note which indicates that the Sessions Court followed the procedure laid down in section 233 calling upon the accused to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence which may have in support thereof. Further the accused was not given any opportunity to put in any written statement. In the statement of the accused recorded on 27th January, 1975 under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code (new), the accused has been asked whether he has any witnesses on his behalf. Further the accused was not given any opportunity to put in any written statement. In the statement of the accused recorded on 27th January, 1975 under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code (new), the accused has been asked whether he has any witnesses on his behalf. He has replied that he has none. The case was posted for judgment. The procedure thus followed by the learned Sessions Judge indicates that he stopped the proceedings of the case at the stage of section 232, Criminal Procedure Code (new). In such a case it is natural for the accused or his counsel to expect the Court to record an order of acquittal. If the Court after further consideration of the evidence on record was of the view that it was not a case for acquittal as laid down in section 232, Criminal Procedure Code (new), it was the duty of the Court to call upon the accused to enter on his defence as required under section 233, Criminal Procedure Code (new). The learned Sessions Judge has failed to do so. But curiously enough on 30th January, 1975 the learned Sessions Judge has made a note that Court wants to hear the advocate for the accused under section 235, Criminal Procedure Code (new), even though no judgment was given convicting the accused. The stage for hearing the accused on the question of sentence arises if the accused is convicted. There is nothing in the order-sheet dated 30th January, 1975 which indicates that a judgment convicting the accused was given on that day. Failure on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to follow the procedure laid down in these sections in a clear cut manner has necessarily given rise to an apprehension in the mind of the accused that he may not get justice at the hands of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge should avoid such irregular procedure being followed in Sessions trials in future. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner has made out a case for, transfer of the case to some other Court for trial. 12. For the reasons stated above, the criminal revision petition is allowed. Sessions Case No. 88 of 1974 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Bijapur, is transferred to the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner has made out a case for, transfer of the case to some other Court for trial. 12. For the reasons stated above, the criminal revision petition is allowed. Sessions Case No. 88 of 1974 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Bijapur, is transferred to the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur. The First Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, is directed to try the case afresh and dispose of the case in accordance with law.