JUDGMENT 1. - This is a transfer. application filed by the accused-petitioners, who are being tried for an offence under Section 302, IPC, in the court of Sessions Judge, Tonk. 2. Mr. Garg, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners argued that in this case, 33 persons have been challaned, and they have been facing trial under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 & 436. According to him, the complete evidence has been recorded in this case; and the arguments also have been heard on 8th August, 1984; and the case was fixed on 14th, August, 1984, for pronouncement of judgment. On this date, judgment was not pronounced, he argued, and the learned Sessions judge adjourned the case for pronouncement of judgment for so many dates. According to him, from 14th August till 27th August, 1984, after giving very short adjournments, the learned Sessions judge did not pronounce the judgment. The petitioners were compelled to attend the court on all these dates right from 10.00 AM to 5.30 P.M, and they had to go back on account of adjournments, given by the court. According to Mr. Garg, for attending the court, every time, the petitioners, who are agriculturists, had to spend a lot of money. They were put to financial loss and had to wait for the whole day in court; and having no place to stay at Tonk, they and to go back to their respective home and again had to come the next date. Even on 27th August, 1984, when the judgment was not pronounced, the petitioners requested the court for giving a longer date, but the court refused to do so and the case was adjourned to 28th, 29th, 30th & 31st August, 1984. It is told that on 31st August, 1984 1st September, 1984 was further fixed, but again, the Judgment was not pronounced; and now, the case is fixed for 13th September, 1984, for the purpose, on the request of the petitioners and on bringing the fact to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge that a transfer-application has already been moved to the High Court. 3. This is a very sad state of affairs no doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has acted in a very irresponsible manner. When the case was argued on 8th August, 1984, the learned Sessions judge should have pronounced the judgment without any delay. 3. This is a very sad state of affairs no doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has acted in a very irresponsible manner. When the case was argued on 8th August, 1984, the learned Sessions judge should have pronounced the judgment without any delay. He fixed it for 14th August, 1984, but the judgment was not pronounced on that date. When the judgment was not ready on 14th August, 1984, the learned Sessions judge should have given a longer date, so that, he could dictate the judgment and keep it ready for pronouncement. But, from the allegations in the transfer-application, I find that the learned Sessions Judge on 14th August, 1984, adjourned the case for 16th, 18th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th & 25th August, 1984. I fail to understand when the judgment was not ready with the learned Sessions Judge, what could be the reason and justification for adjourning the case day to day. On 14th August, 1984, he could have adjourned the case for a week, 10 days or 15 days, so that, he could complete the judgment and pronounce it. But, the learned Sessions Judge adjourned the case day to day, which certainly gave apprehension to the petitioners. This is really very sad, unjust and unreasonable state of affair. The learned Sessions Judge certainly should not have acted in such a manner. 4. No doubt, on account of these adjournments, the accused-petitioners grew apprehension in their mind that there must be some ulterior reasons for the adjournments and no doubt, inconvenience and hardship must have caused to them, but, I do not think that the apprehension regarding ulterior reason, is a bona fide one. This is also true that on account of such inconvenience and financial loss, the petitioners must have been harassed; and they may call it harassment also. But, I do not feel that the learned Sessions judge has any ulterior motive. At the same time, I also feel that adjourning the case for pronouncement of judgment on 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th & 31st August, 1984, was also most unreasonable. On the application of the accused-petitioners that they have moved a transfer-application to this court, I think, a better sense has prevailed, and the learned Sessions judge has fixed the case for 13th September, 1984, for pronouncement of judgment. 5. On the application of the accused-petitioners that they have moved a transfer-application to this court, I think, a better sense has prevailed, and the learned Sessions judge has fixed the case for 13th September, 1984, for pronouncement of judgment. 5. I not only hope, but direct the learned Sessions judge, to pronounce the judgment on 13th September, 1984, postitively. I, however, do not feel to transfer the case from the present court to the court of any other Sessions judge at this stage when the arguments in the case have already been heard, and it is fixed now for pronouncement of judgment. The complete trial was conducted by the learned Sessions Judge. He had heard the arguments also. So, it would be better if he appreciates the evidence in a just and legal better way. 6. Under these circumstances, no doubt, I feel sorry for the delay in pronouncing the judgment, but, I am not inclined to transfer the case at this stage to some other Sessions Court. 7. The transfer-application is, therefore, rejected summarily as mentioned above. 8. I am sure that this transfer-application will have no effect in the mind of the learned Sessions judge, while deciding the case on merits. *******