JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– Mukherji, J.: This is a reference under section 395(2) of the Code made by Shri N. C. Mahanti, Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura by his letter, dated 14th September, 1981, addressed to the Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side. This reference is in connection with the case of The State v. Guru Prosad Mondal & Ors., being Sessions Case No. 3 of February, 1981. The said case was transferred by the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura, to the Court of Shri Mahanti by Order No. 5 dated 11.5.81. The learned Sessions Judge found that the charges were already framed in this case by his predecessor-in-office on 6.4.81. According to the learned Sessions Judge the charges were required to be recast. In that view, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, for favour of disposal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Mahanti is of opinion that the charges were already considered and framed by the then predecessor-in-office of the present Sessions Judge and as such, there is no scope for reconsidering the provisions of section 226 of the Code. Shri Mahanti further states that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 a denovo trial is not obligatory of the succeeding Judge. As such, it is not obligatory in the present case to go back to the stage of section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to recast the charges merely on the ground that the charges were framed by the predecessor-in-office. The learned Judge refers to the provisions of the Code, and also refers to certain decisions of our High Court and of other High Courts and also of the Supreme Court. Relying on the provisions of the Code and also on the decisions, the learned Judge is of opinion that the charges in the case having been framed by the learned Sessions Judge the trial had commenced before him. As such, he introduces a doubt whether a case could be transferred by the learned Sessions Judge at a stage when the charge was already framed by his predecessor-in-office. As such, he introduces a doubt whether a case could be transferred by the learned Sessions Judge at a stage when the charge was already framed by his predecessor-in-office. In this connection, he further mentions that another Sessions Case of The State v. Baul Das and Ors., being Session Case No. 1 of March, 1981 has also been transferred to his file by almost by an identical order of the learned Sessions Judge after framing of charges. In such circumstances, proper directions have been sought for by the learned Judge. The learned Sessions Judge in a letter dated 2nd December, 1981 has also expressed his opinion in this matter. The Sessions Judge is of opinion that the power of the Sessions Judge to transfer the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, in the circumstances of the present case, should not be fettered and as such, the transfer made by the Sessions Judge validly renders the jurisdiction of the transferee Court. By the letter dated 2nd December, 1981 addressed to the Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, Calcutta, the Sessions Judge requests the Registrar to place the matter before Court in connection with the reference petition made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and to obtain necessary orders. 2. In the present case, there was no withdrawal by the Sessions Judge of the case from one Additional Sessions Judge to another Additional Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge, of course, framed charge and then transferred the case to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura. The Sessions Judge also observed that the charges required to be recast by the Judge to whom the case was transferred. In such circumstances, we are of opinion that the case referred to by the learned Judge of (1) State of West Bengal v. Purna Nandy & Ors. which has been reported in 1980 (2) CLJ 424 , does not apply to the facts of the present case. In that case, after the framing of the charge by an Additional Sessions Judge the Sessions Judge withdrew the case and transferred the case to another Sessions Judge. We are of opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was well within his right in transferring the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura and he was further right in directing the learned Judge to reframe the charge. We are of opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was well within his right in transferring the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura and he was further right in directing the learned Judge to reframe the charge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Bankura is, therefore, directed to proceed with the case of State v. Guru Prosad Mondal & Ors., namely, Sessions Case No.3 of February, 1981. He is also directed to proceed with the case of State v. Baul Das and Ors., being Sessions Case No. 1 of March, 1981. The reference is, thus, disposed of. Chaudhuri, J.: I agree.