JUDGMENT V. D. Misra, C. J. (Oral).—-This order will dispose of criminal revision petitions Nos. 72 to 75 of 1980 since common question of law is involved. 2. The respondents are government servants. They had gone on strike. They were charge-sheeted under section 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Essent;al Services (Maintenance) Act, 1972. They were being tried in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan. On 29th September, 1980 they moved Shri H. D. Kainthla, Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmur Districts at Nahan, for transfer of their cases. Common allegations were made. These were that the Magistrate had decided to try the cases in a summary manner despite the objections of the respondents. A grievance was made that the Magistrate was proceeding on day-to-day basis which was the result of "his special interest in the case." It was also alleged that the Magistrate on 26-9-1980 had said ; "that I had thought that the accused would plead guilty". It was averred that the Magistrate had remarked in the open court that he would finish the cases in two days and he will give a decision which will deter the other government employees from joining the strike. One more fact was alleged. It was that the Deputy Commissioner Solan was present in the court everyday and so the accused did not have confidence in the impartiality of the Magistrate. I have noted these facts from the application of transfer moved by respondent Rattan Kaur. 3. Now there was nothing wrong with the Magistrate trying the cases % summarily or for proceeding from day-to-day. There was also nothing wrong with the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, being present in the court. The courts are always open to the public and anyone can watch the proceedings. But if the Magistrate had made the remarks alleged by the applicants, they had a good case for transfer. 4. But the Sessions Judge adopted a novel procedure. Without issuing any notice to the State or calling for the comments of the Magistrate in respect of the serious allegations made against him, the Sessions Judge ordered the transfer of the cases from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, to the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, on circuit at Solan. Copy of this order was given dasti to the respondents. It was also directed that the order be sent immediately to the lower Court. 5. Copy of this order was given dasti to the respondents. It was also directed that the order be sent immediately to the lower Court. 5. Before I go into the validity of this order there is another fact which I must notice. The State, on coming to know about this order, submitted an application to the Sessions Judge making a grievance of the fact that no notice was given to it nor comments of the trial court were called for before ordering the transfer of cases. It was also brought to the notice of the Sessions Judge that such cases had to be tried summarily under the Jaw, and that these were fixed for arguments when the applications for transfer were made. Moreover, it was pointed out, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat had no power to try the cases summary and, therefore, he would have to start the trial denovo. In these circumstances the court was requested to modify the order and allow the cases to be prayed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan. In the alternative it was prayed that the cases be transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmur, at Nahan in order to have a speedy justice. This application was presented on 30th September, 1980. The Sessions Judge again followed the same old procedure of his. He did not give any notice of this application to the accused respondents. Without hearing them the Sessions Judge transferred the cases from Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Kandaghat, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Sirmur at Nahan. Again copy of this order was given dasti "for being produced in the Court of C. J. M. Solan/S. D. J. M. Kandaghat Circuit at Solan for directing the accused party to appear before the transferee Court of C. J. M. Sirmur at Nahan on 3-10-80/.” 6. The result of these decisions was disastrous. The accused were not present when the matter came up before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sirmur at Nahan. The proceedings dragged along. When I inspected Chief Judicial Magistrates Court at Solan, I came to know of this development. I decided to send for the records and exercise my revisional powers under section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code suo motu. I may at this stage clarify that I do not blame the accused for not appearing before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sirmur. When I inspected Chief Judicial Magistrates Court at Solan, I came to know of this development. I decided to send for the records and exercise my revisional powers under section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code suo motu. I may at this stage clarify that I do not blame the accused for not appearing before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sirmur. They perhaps did not come to know of the sudden change of mind of the Sessions Judge. They never expected that they would be deprived of a hearing—a very valuable right of the respondents. 7. Mr. Chitkara, learned counsel for the respondents, frankly states that it is not possible for him to defend the orders passed by the Sessions judge. He is right. Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a Sessions Judge to transfer case from one court to another. But sub-section (3) enjoins upon him to follow the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (7) and (9) of section 407. Now sub-section (5) of section 407 requires an accused applicant to give a notice in writing of the application to the Public Prosecutor. It also prohibits making any order unless at least twenty-four hours have elapsed between the giving of such notice to the Public Prosecutor and the hearing of the application. I do not see why the Sessions Judge was in an unearthly hurry to order the transfer of cases immediately without hearing the State and having comments of the trial Magistrate. Obviously he was acting without jurisdiction by committing a breach of the law. If the Sessions Judge was of the opinion that there was some substance in the allegations made against the trial court, he could have stayed the proceedings pending final decision. If he was anxious to decide the matter at a very early date, he could have fixed a short date. Now what has happened is that the State became aggrieved. Indirect aspersions on the impartiality of the trial Magistrate have been caused. 8. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is very intriguing indeed. He, after reproducing the allegations made by the applicants, goes on to say "The grounds taken by the petitioners are not such which would mean that the C. J. M. will not be acting with impartiality in the discharge of hi& judicial functions..." I am afraid this was wholly a wrong approach. He, after reproducing the allegations made by the applicants, goes on to say "The grounds taken by the petitioners are not such which would mean that the C. J. M. will not be acting with impartiality in the discharge of hi& judicial functions..." I am afraid this was wholly a wrong approach. If the allegations made by the accused had any semblance of truth, the case had to be transferred. Conduct of a trial Magistrate giving rise to a reason able apprehension in the mind of an accused that he was not likely to get a fair trial is enough for transfer o a case. Many a time certain observations made innocuously by a Judicial Officer may give rise to this reasonable apprehension. The test is whether the apprehension in tie mind of the accused is reasonable or not. If this is reasonable, the case must be transferred. 9. In the instant case, if the Magistrate did make the observations as alleged, then definitely it was a fit case for transfer. But, on the other hand, if nothing of the sort had taken place and the allegations were unfounded, then, of course, there was no reason for transfer of the case from that court. Again, it may be noticed that the learned Sessions Judge goes on to say : "but at the same time to meet the requirement of the judicial norms that the justice is not only to be done to the parties but it must appear being so done. Therefore it will be proper that the case is transferred. The moment these observations are made it is presumed that though the learned Magistrate was acting impartially, he had made the alleged remarks in court and that the allegations made by the applicants were true. This is indeed an unfounded indirect aspersion on the trial Magistrate. I am constrained to remark that, to say the least, this is not expected from an experienced Sessions Judge. 10. I am constrained to remark that the Sessions Judge, in his hurry to transfer the cases from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan to Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, overlooked the fact that the latter did not have powers to try the accused summarily, and the cases were to be tried denovo. And this was to be done when the cases were fixed for arguments. And this was to be done when the cases were fixed for arguments. Moreover, just changing his order now at the instance of the State without hearing the accused was indeed compounding the same mistake which he had already made. I trust and hope that the learned Sessions Judge will not give cause for concern to this Court in future and will remember that a fair trial means hearing all the parties to a matter before deciding the case. 11. The result is that the orders of transfer made by the learned Sessions Judge are hereby quashed and set aside. Mr. Panta submits that in order to expedite the trials, which are at the stage of arguments, the matter may be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sirmur at Nahan. Mr. ChitKara wants the same thing. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Sirmur at Nahan is, therefore, directed to hear the cases and decide them expeditiously. The parties are directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Majistrate Sirmur at Nahan on 15th December, 1980.