K. C. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking setting aside of the order of the Sessions Judge dated October 6, 1983, in Sessions Trial No. 476 of 1980, under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. In the alternative, this application was also headed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 2 ) IN respect of an incident of murder, the applicant Malik Ram along with another was committed to the Court of Session, Allahabad. On commitment, the Sessions Trial was numbered as S. T. No. 476 of 1980 and was pending before Sri J. B. Singh, the then VII Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad. Sri J. B. Singh recorded the statements of two eye witnesses, who are Ram Swarup Kesarwani and Husain Akhtar. In due course, Sri J. B. Singh became V Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad. On 5/10/1983, the Sessions Judge, Allahabad, passed the following order in respect of the aforesaid sessions case: The file is transferred to the court of V Additional District Judge vide District Judges order dated 4/10/83. On 6/10/1983, an objection was raised to the jurisdiction of Sri J. B. Singh, V Additional District Judge, Allahahad, about his power to hear and decide Sessions Trial No. 476 of 1980. The learned Additional District Judge overruled the objection holding that the controversy raised before him was covered by a decision of the High Court reported in Punjab Singh v. State of U. P. 1. While rejecting the preliminary objection, the learned Additional District Judge mentioned that he had recorded the statements of P. W. 1 Ram Swarup and P. W. 2 Husain Akhtar as Presiding Officer of the court of VII Additional District Judge. The applicant thereafter filed the present case in this Court and challenged the impugned order on the ground that since Sri J. B. Singh was the VII Additional District Judge when be had recorded the statements, he ceased to have jurisdiction to try the said Sessions Trial on becoming the Vth Additional District Judge. It was also contended that Sri J. B. Singh could not transfer a sessions trial from the file of VII Additional District Judge himself to the court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge. ( 3 ) THIS application has been contested on behalf of the complainant. It was also contended that Sri J. B. Singh could not transfer a sessions trial from the file of VII Additional District Judge himself to the court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge. ( 3 ) THIS application has been contested on behalf of the complainant. The allegation that the file of Sessions Trial in question had been taken by Sri J. B. Singh himself was disputed as wrong. The complainant alleged that on 5-10-1983, the Sessions Judge had sent the file to the court Vth Additional District Judge. It was further contended that on becoming Vth Additional District Judge Sri J. B. Singh did not cease to be the court competent to try Sessions Trial No. 476 of 1980. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions. At the first place, it may be pointed out that the order of the Sessions Judge dated 5/10/1983 was, in fact, not a transfer order in the sense it is dealt with under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order dated 5/10/1983 was only a direction to the office that the file of the sessions trial be sent to Sri J B. Singh. It would be misnomer to call it a transfer order. As a matter of fact, the Sessions Judge did not pass any transfer order. By asking the office to send the file to Sri J. B. Singh, V Additional District Judge, the learned Sessions Judge has only given effect to the law as laid down in the case of Punjab Singh v. State of U. P. (supra ). The controversy raised by the applicant that the learned Sessions Judge had no power to transfer a part-heard case to the same court which had heard it or to another court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not arise for decision. A direction to the office to send the file to Sri J. B. Singh, who was competent to try the same, is not an order either falling within the purview of Section 408 or Section 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A direction to the office to send the file to Sri J. B. Singh, who was competent to try the same, is not an order either falling within the purview of Section 408 or Section 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 408 was consequential on the introduction of Sub-section (1-A) in Section 528 which provided that an application to the High Court for transfer of a case from one criminal court to another criminal court in the same sessions division will not lie unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him. Under this section, if a transfer is sought of a case, which is not part heard, before the Sessions Judge and is pending before an Additional Sessions Judge in the same district, to another court of Additional District Judge or Sessions Judge, it will not be necessary first to apply for transfer to the Sessions Judge under this provision. ( 5 ) SECTION 409 Criminal Procedure Code deals with a different contingency. This section corresponds to Sub-sections (1), (1-A) and n-B) of Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Sub-section (2) of Section 409 Criminal Procedure Code empowers a Sessions Judge at any time before the trial of the case has commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge, to recall any case or appeal which he has made over to any Additional Sessions Judge. ( 6 ) IT would be seen from the above that to a part-heard case pending before an Additional Sessions Judge whose designation has been changed and who still remains in the same district, neither Section 408 nor Section 409 applies. The scheme and spirit of the Code appears to be that one who has started a sessions trial must decide the same in as much as in a criminal trial the impression gathered by Presiding Officer about the demeanour of a witness goes a long way and plays a prominent part in deciding the trial. This principle has, however, been given a go-bye in Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of a Presiding Officer being transferred from that district to another district. Forty-first Report of the Law Commission has given the objects and reasons for enacting Section 326. However, since I am not concerned with Section 326, I am not called upon to discuss the same at length. Forty-first Report of the Law Commission has given the objects and reasons for enacting Section 326. However, since I am not concerned with Section 326, I am not called upon to discuss the same at length. ( 7 ) ANOTHER section, which is relevant in this connection, is Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section deals with the powers of the High Court to transfer cases and appeals. The power of the High Court to transfer is un hedged and unbriddled. It can transfer a case by making a judicial order or on its administrative side. It appears that it is in pursuance of the exercise of the administrative power that the High Court had issued a Circular laying down the procedure which should be followed in case of the designation of the Additional Sessions Judge being changed. It was said in this Circular that in order to avoid administrative complications, when Additional Sessions Judge (which includes the Additional District Judge also) is transferred from one court to another court in a local arrangement, the Additional Sessions Judge concerned shall submit a list of all the part-heard sessions trials in which the recording of evidence has commenced to the Sessions Judge who shall record an order transferring such trial to the file of the court to which the Additional Sessions Judge has been transferred. To me, it appears that the Circular issued by the High Court is in accord with the principle laid down in the case of Punjab Singh v. State of U. P. (supra) and is also in conformity with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Submission of a list to the Sessions Judge and making of an order by him bas only a limited purpose of keeping the administrative control over the movement of files. ( 8 ) I am, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the applicants learned counsel that Sri J. B. Singh on becoming the V Additional Sessions Judge ceased to have jurisdiction. The controversy as to when does a Sessions Judge cases to nave jurisdiction to try a sessions case has been dealt with in Punjab Singh v. State of U. P. (supra ). Negativing the argument that there is seizure of jurisdiction even in such a case, the Division Bench held that it does not so happen. The controversy as to when does a Sessions Judge cases to nave jurisdiction to try a sessions case has been dealt with in Punjab Singh v. State of U. P. (supra ). Negativing the argument that there is seizure of jurisdiction even in such a case, the Division Bench held that it does not so happen. ( 9 ) IN Smt. Gulzar v. Nizam a learned Single Judge has taken the view which has been endorsed by the Division Bench in Punjab Singh v. State of U. P. (supra ). , On the basis of a reference made by a learned Single Judge in Radhey Shyam and another v. State of U. P. 3 the learned counsel contended that since the correctness of the Division Bench decision in Punjab Singh v. State of U. P. has been doubted, this Court may defer the hearing of this application. I am unable to de cede to the submission. ( 10 ) THE decision in Punjab Singh v. State of U. P. (supra) lays down, in my view the correct Jaw. To me it appears that the decision of the Division Bench in State of U. P. v. Gyan Chand and others,4 was given on different facts. There is no conflict between these two decisions. The controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the decision in Punjab Singh v. State of U. P. (supra), by which I am bound. In Gyan Chands case, the controversy was about the power of a Sessions Judge to transfer a part-heard sessions trial from the court of one Additional Sessions Judge to another and not when the designation of the same Additional Sessions Judge is changed due to administrative reasons. In reality on a change of designation, no transfer of the case takes place. The Additional Sessions Judge, whose designation has changed, continues to have the power to hear a partheard case. This sessions case had been made over to him, when he had power to decide it, which he does not cease to posses. Precisely on account of this reason that Gyan Chandts case was distinguished by the Division Bench deciding Punjab Singh v. State of U. P. (supra ). This sessions case had been made over to him, when he had power to decide it, which he does not cease to posses. Precisely on account of this reason that Gyan Chandts case was distinguished by the Division Bench deciding Punjab Singh v. State of U. P. (supra ). ( 11 ) FOR what I have said above, I hold that Sri J. B. Singh, Vth Additional Sessions Judge had the power to hear and decide the part-heard Sessions Trial No. 476 of 1980. However, in the alternative, on the facts of the present case, I consider the present as a fit case for invoking and exercising the power conferred by Section 407 (1) (c) Criminal Procedure Code accordingly, do so. The prayer made in this application is liable to be rejected. ( 12 ) THIS is since an old sessions trial of the year 1980, to me it appears to be a fit case to give a direction to the court concerned to decide it expeditiously. ( 13 ) IN the result, the application is dismissed. The stay order is discharged. Application dismissed. .