B. N. KATJA, J. ( 1 ) THE applicants filed an application in this court under Section 407 Criminal Procedure Code for transfer of Sessions Trial No. 210 of 1981 State v Balgovind and others from thet court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad to some other competent court within the same Sessions Divisions. When the aforesaid application was heard by a single Judge a preliminary objection was taken that the application was not maintainable in view of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 407 Criminal Procedure Code. The learned counsel for the applicants, however, contended that as the Sessions Trial was part-heard the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 407 Criminal Procedure Code was inapplicable as the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer a part heard Sessions trial under Section 408 Criminal Procedure Code. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicants reiled on the Division Bench decision of this Court in State v. 1. Gyan Chand in which it was held:1. Sub-section (I C) of Section 528 Criminal Procedure Code does not confer power on the Sessions Judge to transfer a sessions trial from the file of one Additional Sessions Judge to another Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge in the same sessions division once the trial has commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge. However, if the case is pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge the Sessions Judge has the power to entertain an application for the transfer of the Sessions trial and to transfer it to another Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, even though the trial has already commenced. ( 2 ) WHERE trial has already commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge it is not necessary for the party to comply with the provisions of section 526 (1a), Criminal Procedure Code he can move the High Court direct for the transfer of the part heard sessions trial to the file of another Sessions Judge, but if such trial is pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge it is necessary for the party to comply with the provisions of subsection (1a) of section 526, Criminal Procedure Code. It is not open to the Sessions Judge to entertain an application under section 528, Criminal Procedure Code for the transfer of the case from the file of the Additional Sessions Judge in cases the trial has commenced before1 the said Additional Sessions Judge but if the trial has been commenced before the Assistant Sessions Judge the Sessions Judge can and must entertain the application under section 528, Criminal Procedure Code for the transfer of the case to another Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge in the same Sessions division The learned Single Judge was not in agreement with the decision of this court in State v. Gyan Chand (supra ). He accordingly referred the under mentioned question to a Full Bench for decision:whether a Sessions Judge has no power under Section 408 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer a part heard case or appeal from the court of an Additional Sessions Judge to some other competent court within his sessions division and the limitations imposed under section 409 sub-clause (2) of the new Code are applicable in exercise of the power of transfer conferred under Section 408 of the new Code? We are required to answer this question. 2. Section 407 (1), Criminal Procedure Code confers power on the High Court to transfer a case or appeal from one subordinate Criminal Court to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction if it appears that it is expedient for the ends of justice. Under Section 407 (2), Criminal Procedure Code the High Court may exercise this power either on the report of the lower court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative. An application by a party interested to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division is barred by the proviso to sub-sections (2) of Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him. ( 3 ) IT is mentioned in Section 9 Criminal Procedure Code that the State Government shall establish a court of Session in every sessions division. ( 3 ) IT is mentioned in Section 9 Criminal Procedure Code that the State Government shall establish a court of Session in every sessions division. Every Court of Session shall be presided by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court and High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. ( 4 ) IT was rightly held in State v. Gyan Chand (supra)The expression Criminal Court in so far Sections 526 and 528, Criminal Procedure Code are concerned must be given a wider meaning to mean a Court exercising Crimina Jurisdiction. For the purposes of these two sections the Court of each Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge shall be a Criminal Court though all of them shall be exercising jurisdiction in the same court of Session. It may be mentioned that Section 526 (1-A), Criminal Procedure Code 1898 is similar to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code and Section 528 (1-C) Criminal Procedure Code 1898 is similar to Section 408 (1), Criminal Procedure Code. ( 5 ) THUS all Additional Sessions Judges in a sessions division are separate Criminal Courts for the purposes of the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code and Section 408 (1), Criminal Procedure Code although they exercise jurisdiction in the same court of Session. ( 6 ) THE word case used in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code and Section 408 (1), Criminal Procedure Code must be given a wide meaning. It thus includes all trials and appeals whether their hearing bas commenced or not. ( 7 ) IT, therefore, follows that no application by a party interested is maintainable in the High Court for transferring a trial or an appeal whether its bearing has commenced or not, from one Additional Sessions Judge to another Additional Sessions Judge in the same sessions division unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him in view of the proviso to subsection 12) of Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code. ( 8 ) THE reason for imposing a bar on a direct application to the High Court by the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code appears to be the conferment of concurrent power of transfer on the Sessions Judge of case from one Criminal court to another Criminal court in his sessions division if it is expedient for the ends of justice under Section 408 (1), Criminal Procedure Code and the exercise of this power on an application of a party interested under Section 408 (2), Criminal Procedure Code. A party interested is thus required to move such an application before the Sessions Judge first and only after it is rejected that such 8. n application is maintainable in the High Court under Section 407 (2), Criminal Procedure Code. It may be mentioned that in view of Section 412, Criminal Procedure Code reasons have to be given by the Sessions Judge for rejecting an application under Section 408, Criminal Procedure Code. It, therefore, follows that the Sessions Judge is empowered under Section 408 (I), Criminal Procedure Code to transfer a trial or an appeal from one Additional Sessions Judge to another Additional Sessions Judge in his sessions division whether its hearing has commenced or not an application by a party interested if it is expedient in the interest of justice. ( 9 ) IT is significant to note that the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code only bars an application by a party interested to the High Court for transfer ring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division unless such an application for transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him. It does not impose any bar on the power of the High Court under Section 407 (1), Criminal Procedure Code to transfer a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division, either on the report of the lower court or on its own initiative under Section 407 (2), Criminal Procedure Code. It does not impose any bar on the power of the High Court under Section 407 (1), Criminal Procedure Code to transfer a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division, either on the report of the lower court or on its own initiative under Section 407 (2), Criminal Procedure Code. ( 10 ) THE power conferred on the Sessions Judge under Section 408 (I), Criminal Procedure Code to transfer a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in his sessions division can be exercised by him either on the report of the lower court or on the application of the party interested or on his own initiative under Section 408 (2), Criminal Procedure Code. It is true that an Additional Sessions Judge is not a lower court as he exercise jurisdiction in the same court of session in which the Sessions Judge exercises jurisdiction. Thus a report by an Additional Sessions Judge for the transfer of a case to another Additional Sessions Judge in the same sessions division is not maintainable by the Sessions Judge. But from this it cannot be inferred that the Sessions Judge is not competent to transfer a case from one Additional Sessions Judge to another Additional Sessions Judge in his sessions division either on the application of the party interested or on his own initiative as under sub-section (1) of Section 408, Criminal Procedure Code, the Sessions Judge is empowered to transfer a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in his sessions division irrespective of the fact whether they are lower courts or not. It has been mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section I 408, Criminal Procedure Code that the Sessions Judge may act on the report of the lower court Criminal Procedure Code to recall a case or appeal from an Additional Sessions Judge after the trial of the case or the hearing of the appeal has commenced, but from this it cannot be inferred that the power conferred on the Sessions Judge to recall a case or an appeal from an Additional Sessions Judge before the trial of the case or the hurling of the appeal has commenced is not administrative. It appears that this bar has been imposed on the Sessions Judge by the legislature as it may have thought that it would not be proper to confer administrative power on the Sessions Judge to recall a case or an appeal from an Additional Sessions Judge after the trial of the case or the hearing of the appeal has commenced, as an Additional Sessions Judge exercises jurisdiction in the same court of Session in which the Sessions Judge exercises jurisdiction and is thus not subordinate to him. Once the trial of a case or hearing of an appeal commences before an Additional Sessions Judge it is only proper that it is concluded before him and is not transferred by the Sessions Judge in connection with distribution of business. It is noteworthy that the Sessions Judge is empowered under Section 409 (1) Criminal Procedure Code to withdraw any case or appeal from a recall any case or appeal which he has made over to any Assistant Sessions Judge or the Chief Judicial Magistrate subordinate to him irrespective of the fact whether the trial of the case or hearing of the appeal has commenced or not. The bar imposed on a Sessions Judge to recall a case or an appeal which he has made over to an Additional Sessions Judge after the trial of the case or the hearing of the appeal has commenced is thus a bar on the administrative power of the Sessions Judge to recall a case or an appeal from on Additional Sessions Judge in connection with the distribution of business. ( 11 ) THE power conferred by section 408 (1) Criminal Procedure Code on the Sessions Judge to transfer a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in his Sessions division if it is expedient for the ends of justice and a similar power conferred on the High Court by Section 407 (1) Criminal Procedure Code on an application of a party interested, is judicial and not administrative, as sub-sections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (9), of Section 407 Criminal Procedure Code are applicable to both the Sessions Judge as well as the High Court. It is clear from the aforesaid sub-sections that the transfer of a case from one Additional Sessions Judge to another Additional Sessions Judge in the same sessions division by the Sessions Judge as well as the High Court is not done administratively in connection with the distribution of business but judicially if it is expedient in the interest of justice after hearing the parties. ( 12 ) THE power conferred on the Sessions Judge under Section 408 (1) Criminal Procedure Code to transfer a case or an appeal pending in the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge to another Additional Sessions Judge in his sessions division whether its hearing has commenced or not, is thus an independent judicial power which is not subject to the bar imposed by Section 409 (2) Criminal Procedure Code on the administrative power of the Sessions Judge of recalling a case or an appeal from an Additional Sessions Judge after the trial of the case or hearing of the appeal has commenced. ( 13 ) THE proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 407 Criminal Procedure Code which bars an application to the High Court for the transfer of a part heard trial or an appeal from one Additional Sessions Judge to another Additional Sessions Judge in the same sessions division unless such an application has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him, is also not subject to the bar imposed on the power of the Sessions Judge by Section 409 (2) Criminal Procedure Code to recall case from an Additional Sessions Judge after the trial of the case or the hearing of an appeal has commenced, which, as said earlier, is purely administrative whereas the power to transfer a part heard trial or an appeal from one Additional Sessions Judge to another Additional Sessions Judge in the same sessions division on an application of a party interested by the Sessions Judge and also by the High Court is judicial and is to be exercised if it is expedient for the ends of justice. ( 14 ) IT is necessary to point out that the power conferred on the Sessions Judge under Section 409 (1) Criminal Procedure Code to withdraw any case or appeal from or recall any case or appeal which he has made over to any Assistant Sessions Judge or the Chief Judicial Magistrate subordinate to him; the power conferred on the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 410 (1) Criminal Procedure Code to withdraw any case from or recall any case which he has made over to any Magistrate subordinate to him and to inquire into or try such case himself, or refer it for inquiry or trial to any other such Magistrate competent to inquire into or try the same; the power conferred on the judicial Magistrate under Section 410 (2) Criminal Procedure Code to recall any case made over by him under sub-section (2) of Section 192 Criminal Procedure Code to any other Magistrate and to inquire into or try such case himself and the power conferred on District Magistrate or sub-divisional Magistrate under Section 411 Criminal Procedure Code to make over, for disposal, any proceeding which has been started before him, to any Magistrate subordinate to him and to withdraw any case from, or recall any case which he has made over to, any Magistrate subordinate to him, and dispose of such proceeding himself or refer it for disposal to any other Magistrate ate all administrative powers in connection with the distribution of business. These powers are distinct from the judicial power of transfer conferred on the High Court and the Sessions Judge to be exercised if expedient for the ends of justice. For the reasons given above, with respect, we are not in agreement with the under mentioned answers given by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 747 of 1971 and Criminal Misc. Case No. 3318 of 1972 decided on 17/9/1974. 1. sub section (I C) of Section 528 Criminal Procedure Code does not confer power on the Sessions Judge to transfer a sessions trial from the file of one Additional Sessions Judge to another Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge in the same sessions division once the trial has commenced before the Additional sessions Judge. 2. 1. sub section (I C) of Section 528 Criminal Procedure Code does not confer power on the Sessions Judge to transfer a sessions trial from the file of one Additional Sessions Judge to another Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge in the same sessions division once the trial has commenced before the Additional sessions Judge. 2. Where trial has already commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge it is not necessary for the party to comply with the provisions of Section 526 (1a) Criminal Procedure Code he can move the High Court direct for the transfer of the part heard sessions trial to the file of another Sessions Judge. 3. It is not open to the Sessions Judge to entertain an application under Section 528 Criminal Procedure Code for the transfer of the case from the file of Additional Sessions Judge in case the trial has commenced before the said Additional Sessions Judge. ( 15 ) WE are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court Avinash Chandra v. The States. For the reasons given above our answer to the question referred to us is that the Sessions Judge is empowered under Section 408 Criminal Procedure Code to transfer a part heard case or appeal from a court of an Additional Sessions Judge to another competent Court within his sessions division if it is expedient in the interest of justice and the limitations imposed under Section 409 (2) Criminal Procedure Code are not applicable in exercise of the power of transfer conferred under Section 408 Criminal Procedure Code. ( 16 ) BEFORE concluding it may be mentioned that it was contened by the learned counsel for the applicants that the learned Single Judge was not competent to make this reference as the Division Bench decision of this Court in State v. Gyan Chand (supra) was binding on him. This contention is without force. It was open to the learned Single Judge to refer the question framed by him to a Full Bench for decision as he was not in agreement with the view taken in State, v. Gyan Chand (supra ). ( 17 ) LET our answer be placed before the appropriate Beech. Application allowed