JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - This application u/s 407(1)(c)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made by the Petitioner, who figures as the accused person in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Keonjhar, in the district of Keonjhar in lee No. 79 of 1978 instituted by the opposite party and in which cognisance of the offence punishable u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken, for trial by a court at Berhampur in the district of Ganjam. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides. The grounds taken for transfer and raised before this Court are that the Petitioner is an old and ailing person aged about 65 years and has been forbidden by the doctors to travel long distances and he apprehends that the opposite party, who, according to the Petitioner is an influential person of Keonjhar, has arranged some Goondas to feed-fat his grudge and the Petitioner apprehends danger to his life. It has also been stated in the application, and submitted before me that when the Petitioner 5 son had visited Keonjhar in September, 1979, to ascertain the position of this case, the opposite party, with the help of some rowdy elements, openly threatened him and gave out that the Petitioner would not be spared if he appeared at Keonjhar. These allegations, which have been supported by an affidavit, have been controverted by a counter affidavit sworn in by the opposite party. Thus there has been oath against oath. 2. As can be seen from the record, the Petitioner has not yet appeared in the court although cognisance has been taken as far back as on 30-9-1978 and several steps have been taken for service of the summons on him and after he received the summons and made an application for an adjournment without himself appearing on 9-4-1979, he absented himself and thereafter a nonbailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the Petitioner which remained unexecuted until further proceedings were stayed by an order of this Court passed on 4-12-1981 in this Miscellaneous Case. It would thus appear that the Petitioner has no personal knowledge about the apprehensions of his. As has been submitted at the Bar, no report to the police or other authorities had been made by the Petitioner's son when the opposite party with some other rowdy elements allegedly gave the threat. It would thus appear that the Petitioner has no personal knowledge about the apprehensions of his. As has been submitted at the Bar, no report to the police or other authorities had been made by the Petitioner's son when the opposite party with some other rowdy elements allegedly gave the threat. The apprehensions of the Petitioner do not, therefore, seem to be well founded. 3. The Petitioner may be aged about 65 years as stated by his and he has also stated that he has been suffering from diabetes and fistula. But it would be noticed from the record of Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 798 of 1981 that another case is pending against him at Jeypore in the district of Koraput, also at a very distant place from Berharnpur of which the Petitioner is a resident and in that case, too, an application for transfer had been moved on similar grounds of health and other apprehensions which was rejected by this Court on 4-12-1981. 4. As has been laid down by this Court in the case of Alekha Dutta v. Khetramohan Sahu 36 (1970) C.L.T. 1242, in a case of transfer, the interest not only of the accused, but also of the complainant has to be looked into. There is a general consensus of judicial opinion that in matters of transfer greater imphasis is to be laid on the convenience and interest of the accused rather than of the prosecutor. While doing so, the interest of the prosecutor and his right to institute criminal proceedings punishable under the law should not also be unreasonably whittled down. In cases of transfer, therefore, a balance is to be struck. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as a matter of principle. An application for transfer is to be considered always with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. The grounds on which a transfer may be ordered have been laid down by the Supreme Court in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Another Vs. Rani Jethmalani Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for the Court, has observed and held thus: Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy avaIlability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more Imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the Petitioner's grounds on this touch-stone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances. 5. The aforesaid principles are to be kept in mind while considering an application for the transfer of instituted the criminal case in the court having jurisdiction. The allegations made by the Petitioner against the opposite party which, according to the latter are false, relate to incidents in the Keonjhar district and the witnesses for the complainant are also from that area. Merely because the Petitioner is a resident of Berhampur in the district of Ganjam, he cannot legally and legitimately choose the forum of his trial in a court at Berhampur. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to allow the application for transfer of the case sought by the Petitioner. If at any stage of the trial, the Petitioner entertains a reasonable apprehension that he may not be able to get justice and may not be able to properly defend himself at the place of trial because of some acts of the opposite party, it would be open to him to move an application for transfer on reasonable grounds. As for his physical incapacity, it is open to the Petitioner, if so advised, to make an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for being represented by an Advocate if permissible in the circumstances of the case and in case such an application is made, it would be open to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to make such order as he considers to be just, reasonable and proper. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I would reject the application made for transfer of the case. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed