P.D. KUDAL, J.—This is an application under sec. 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for transferring Sessions Case No. 17 of 1975, State vs. Lala Ram & Ors , pending in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sikar, presided over by Shri Jas Karan Dasani. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Shri Kumar Narain, a practising lawyer filed a Civil Suit against the Municipal Council, Sikar and other persons for perpetual injunction in the Court of Munsiff, Sikar. This suit was dismissed on 29-9-1970. A second suit was filed by him which was also dismissed on 12-12-1974. 3. It is alleged that on 15-1-1975 some quarrel resulting in marpeet took place on the disputed way. A report of this incident was lodged by Vinod -Kumar s/o Kumar Narain at the Police Kotwali, Sikar In this report as many as 89 persons are alleged to have been involved. After due investigation, the police submitted challan against 14 persons only. Out of those 14 persons three persons are alleged to be absconding, and one is saide to have died and the remaining ten persons are facing trial, under secs. 395, 452 and 147, I.P.C. This trial is going on before the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar. 4. The contentions of the present accused-petitioners are that they have reasonable apprehension in their mind that they will not get fair and equitable trial before the learned Sessions Judge. 395, 452 and 147, I.P.C. This trial is going on before the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar. 4. The contentions of the present accused-petitioners are that they have reasonable apprehension in their mind that they will not get fair and equitable trial before the learned Sessions Judge. The main contention on which this apprehension has arisen in the minds of the accused-petitioners is that in another Sessions Case No. 74 of 1974, the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar (Shri Jas Karan Dasani) reproduced the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor as under— ^^fo}ku yksdvfHk;kstd us rdZ fn;k fd vfHk;qDrx.k esa dqN fo|kFkhZ gS ftUgksus nks ckj vkidh eksVj ?kj ls vkrs oDr dksVZ jkLrsa esa jksdh] ipkl ipkl :i;s izR;sd ij LVsku ls ekaxk x;k vkSj fo|kFkhZ ogh gS ftUgksus l=g rkjh[k blh eghus ?kVuk esa dqlacaf/kr Fks pkgs og blesa eqfYte u gks ftUgksus Jh lqjskpUnz eqfUlQ o ,d vU; jktdh; vf/kdkjh Jh vk;Z ds ?kj jkr dks ykfB;ksa ls ekjk] njoktksa ij Jh vk;Z ds ?kj ds njokts rksM+ fn;sa fQj mUgksus tekur Jh lh- ts- ,e- dksVZ ls djokyh vkSj ,e- ts- ,e- dksVZ esa buds f[kykQ okjUV fxjrkjh gksrs gw, Hkh nqljs dsl esas ftlesa fo|kFkhZ vfHk;qDrksa dh t:jr Fkh ,e- ts- ,e- dksVZ ls lh- ts- ,e- dksVZ dks fy[k fn;k Fkk bl ckjs esa fQj Hkh lh- ts- ,e- us bUgs dLVMh esa Hkstus ds ctk; bl dksVZ esa tekur ij NksM+ fn;k vkSj fQj dqN vfHk;qDrx.k Jh xksM ds ?kj x;s mUgs xkfy;ka o vikCn dgs vkSj bl eqdnesa ds dqN eqyfteku us bl U;k;ky; dks Hkh /kedh Hkjk i= fy[kk Fkk bl U;k;ky; dks ,sls i= eqdnesa esas vkSj Hkh fey pqds gS fd ?kwal ys yks vkSj dke djnks ojuk tku ls gkFk /kks cSBksxsA iylkuk okys dsl esa vnkyr esa QSlyk lqukrs oDr gkFk ca/ks gksus ds ckotwn chM+h lqyxkyh vnkyr dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nh tks QSlys esa fy[kh gqbZ gSA nsk esas bu gkykr esa ;fn lkfcr vijkf/k;ksa dks U;k;ky; NksM+ nsxk Mj ds rks og dkys fnu tks vHkh dqN fnuksa igys thrs gS muls Hkh cqjs fnu nsk dks ns[kusa iMs+axsA iztkrkfU=d kklu esa yksxksa dk jkT; yqIr gks tk;sxkA ;g nqHkkZX; dk fnu gksxkA vnkyr fuMj gksdj U;k; ugh djsxhA bUgksus dgk fd ;g Hkkouk ugh llPpkbZ gS gdhdr gS rF; gS ftlls Hkkxk ugh tk;sxkA lkeuk djuk iMs+xk ojuk txay dk jktk gks tkosxkA lqj{kk lekIr gks tk;sxhA lk/kkj.k vkneh dh gkyr [kjkc gks tk;sxh] xqaM+k xnhZ c<sxh jkr ds le; esas funksZk vkSjrksa o O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk bl rjg O;ogkj djs vkSj Mjk /kedk dj vfHk;qDr NwV tk;s] ,slk ugh gksuk pkfg;sA vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls dgk x;k fd dksbZ kgknr ugh gS muds f[kykQ dkuwuhA vr% dksbZ tqeZ ugh curkA^^ 5. Mr. Tibrewal, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that in the judgment the learned Sessions Judge has underlined these observations and has tried to give undue importance to the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor. It was also contended that, though the transfer petition was submitted before this Court, and a notice of the said application had been issued yet, the learned Sessions Judge showed undue haste in proceeding with the trial of the Sessions Case, though it was pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar for more than three years. 6. The learned Advocate General was heard in this case. As the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor, which were reproduced in this transfer petition from the judgment in Sessions Case No. 74/1974, raise a serious question of law and order and the safety of the judicial officer, the learned Advocate General contended that if there is a general break in the maintenance of law and order, the Court should take note of it and proceed according to law. 7. Mr. Khan, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, has contended that the majesty of law and the dignity of the Courts have to be maintained by the judicial officer, and they must act in a dispassionate manner in the dispensation of justice. He further contended that even in trying circumstances the judicial officers should keep restraint on themselves and keep in mind the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is to be presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise. He further contended that no opportunity should be afforded to the accused persons to harbour a bona fide impression that they are not likely to get justice from a particular judicial officer. 8. Mr. Pareek, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, has opposed the transfer petition. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Amar Singh vs. Sadhu Singh (1); Gurcharan Dass vs. State of Rajasthan (2) and Ram Lal vs. Birdhi Lal Sethi (3). 10. The comments of the learned Sessions Judge were obtained on this transfer petition He has contended that a transfer petition was earlier moved before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar presided over by Shri Pyare Mohan Bagerhatta when the case was pending in his Court. The same petition was dismissed on 4-6-1975. 10. The comments of the learned Sessions Judge were obtained on this transfer petition He has contended that a transfer petition was earlier moved before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar presided over by Shri Pyare Mohan Bagerhatta when the case was pending in his Court. The same petition was dismissed on 4-6-1975. He has also contended that this case was transferred along with other cases to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge on 31-1-1978. But this request was not approved by the High Court, and the case remained pending in his Court. The observations which have been objected to by the accused-petitioners, were nothing, but the reproduction of the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor. Regarding the allegation of undue haste in disposal of case, he has contended that as this was one of the oldest case which was lying in his Court, he took steps to complete the same. 11. Respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. 12. Sessions Case No. 74/1974 was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar (Shri Jas Karan Dasani) on 5-4-1978 A certified copy of this order has been produced. While reproducing the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Sessions Judge underlined all the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioners contends that this has led to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused-petitioners that the learned Sessions Judge (Shri Jas Karan Dasani) is biased against them, and that they may not get a just and fair trial at his hands. In Sessions Case No. 74 of 1974, there were nine accused persons. In the present Sessions Case No. 17 of 1975, there are ten accused persons. The present petition for transfer has been filed on behalf of five accused persons only. Out of the present five accused-petitioners Kishan Singh and Hari Singh were accused in the previous trial in Sessions Case No. 74 of 1974, also. In Sessions Case No. 74 of 1974, the learned Public Prosecutor laid great stress on the complete break-down of law and order. It was contended by him that even the car of the Sessions Judge was stopped on the road by some of these accused persons. In Sessions Case No. 74 of 1974, the learned Public Prosecutor laid great stress on the complete break-down of law and order. It was contended by him that even the car of the Sessions Judge was stopped on the road by some of these accused persons. It is also contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the house of the Munsif-Magistrate was attacked in the dead of night and his doors were seriously damaged. It was further contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that threatening letters have been received by the learned Sessions Judge of dire consequences. One of the accused persons in Sessions Case No. 74 of 1974, though in letters, is alleged to have misbehaved with the Sessions Judge in the Court also. 13. If the contentions made by the learned Public Prosecutor have any truth, then it exhibits a complete break-down of law and order in the district. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge must have taken note of this deteriorating situation of law and order and, therefore, underlined the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Sessions Judge should not have underlined these contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor, because a judicial officer has to exercise a great restraint on himself also He was at liberty to have pass any order which the merits of the case demanded; but by underlining these contentions, he showed great anxiety over the break-down of law and order situation, which was, in fact, more concern of the executive and the district administration then of the learned Sessions Judge. But the main question is, whether by merely underlining these contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor a reasonable apprehension has been created in the minds of the accused persons that they will not get a just and fair trial at the hands of the learned Sessions Judge (Shri Jas Karan Dasani). 14. The learned Sessions Judge is also alleged to have received threatening letters and it has been contended that even his car was stopped in the way while he was coming to the Court. Sending of threatening anonymous letters to the Sessions Judge cannot, but be deprecated. This seriously tent amounts to the interference in the administration of justice. 14. The learned Sessions Judge is also alleged to have received threatening letters and it has been contended that even his car was stopped in the way while he was coming to the Court. Sending of threatening anonymous letters to the Sessions Judge cannot, but be deprecated. This seriously tent amounts to the interference in the administration of justice. Similarly, the stoppage of the car of the learned Sessions Judge on the road while he was going to the Court, it also a conduct which can only be highly condemned. 15. In spite of this, the question which has to be decided is, whether in the present set of circumstances, the present accused-petitioners have a reasonable apprehension that they will not get a just and fair trial at the hands of the learned Sessions Judge. Having given my most anxious consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, and keeping in view the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that an accused must be treated as an innocent unless otherwise proved, I feel that the accused-petitioner can have a reasonable apprehension in their mind that they will not get just and fair trial in the present sessions trial at the hands of the learned Sessions Judge Shri Jas Karan Dasani. The function of a judicial Court is not restricted to the administration of justice, but also to create an impression that justice has been administered. 16. For the reasons stated above, the transfer petition filed by the accused petitioners is accepted and it is hereby directed that the Sessions Case No. 17 of 1975, State vs. Lala Ram & others, shall be transferred to the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu for trial according to law. The record of the case, if received, shall be returned immediately. 17. The order dated 4-5-1978 shall stand vacated in consequence of the disposal of the transfer petition. 18. Before parting with this transfer petition, it is hereby directed that a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur who may please take note of deteriorating law and order situation in the District of Sikar with particular reference to the safety of the judicial officers for whom dispensation of justice is becoming increasingly difficult in the face of their personal insecurity.