JUDGMENT H.S. Thakur, J.—The petitioner Smt. Kamlesh is the daughter of Shri Itwari Lal deceased, who has filed this application under Section 407 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the transfer of Sessions Trial No. 17-S/7 of 1983 to any other Sessions Judge from the Court of the Sessions judge, Solan. 2. It is stated in the application that Shri Itwari Lal deceased is the father of the petitioner. It is pointed out that in the early hours of the night between 30th and 31st May, 1983, the house of the father of the petitioner was attacked by respondents 2 to 17 and the father of the petitioner was murdered. The FIR is stated to have been recorded at the instance of the petitioner at Police Post, Solan City. The challan was presented on 29th August, 1983 and the learned Sessions Judge fixed 6th of September, 1983 for the consideration of the charge. According to the petitioner, the case was subsequently fixed for 27-9-1983 for framing of the charge at Nahan. The learned Sessions Judge on 27-9-1983 is stated to have framed the charge under Section 304 Part-I, IPC besides other sections, but the charge under Section 302, IPC had been dropped. A revision petition is stated to have been filed in this Court which was ultimately disposed of by a judgment dated 11-10-1983 in Cr. Rev. No. 88/83 According to the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge was directed to consider the matter afresh. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 22-11-1983 framed the charge under Section 302, IPC besides other sections and fixed 14th December, 1983 for recording the prosecution evidence. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that her brother, Shri Kamal Prakash, has been attending the court on every hearing and had some talk also with the Presiding Officer of the Sessions Court. His affidavit has been also annexed. In his affidavit, Shri Kamal Prakash who is the son of the deceased has affirmed that on November 22, 198 3, when the hearing of the case was fixed at Nahan, the learned Sessions Judge enquired from him about his identity and on his disclosure, the learned Sessions Judge put more searching questions about his family members The learned Sessions Judge is stated to have told him that they are no doubt Harijans but are trouble makers. It is further stated to have been observed by the learned Sessions judge that they have been arranging meetings at Solan against the Public Prosecutor and the Court and also meeting Ministers at Shimla against the Sessions Judge. It is further alleged that the learned Sessions judge asked him that if they have any complaint against him, they should tell him there and then. It is also alleged that the learned Sessions Judge told him that they are at liberty to do any thing but after all the case is to be decided by that court. It is alleged that the learned Sessions Judge further informed that he was to proceed on leave and be wanted to dispose of the case finally before that. According to Kamal Prakash, from the behaviour, talk and demeanour of the learned Sessions Judge during the last hearing in the case, he had given a clear impression of apprehension that the complainant-party will not get justice from that court. It is asserted that the learned Sessions judge was very much annoyed by the revision petition filed by the State against the dropping of the charge under Section 302, IPC. It is pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge is under the impression that the State was approached by the complainant-party to move the High Court by way of revision against the charge and that the learned Sessions Judge is bent upon to teach a lesson to the complainant-party. It is further asserted that the persons who are defending the accused, being their relatives, are stationed at Solan and are openly proclaiming that the accused-persons would be aquitted and nobody could touch their little finger as they would get a clear aquittal from the Sessions Court. 4. By an order dated 13th September, 1983, the comments of the learned Sessions Judge were called for. The comments have been received. According to the learned Sessions Judge, one of the sons of late Itwari Lal has been attending his court in the case. He has, however, shown his ignorance about his name. Inter alia, it is pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge that he did say that the accused were undertrials since 31st May, 1983 and some of them were arrested during the month of June and July, 1983 and, as such, the trial had to be expedited on top priority basis irrespective of the consequences thereof. Inter alia, it is pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge that he did say that the accused were undertrials since 31st May, 1983 and some of them were arrested during the month of June and July, 1983 and, as such, the trial had to be expedited on top priority basis irrespective of the consequences thereof. It is further pointed out by the learned Sessions judge that he did ask for the presence of a person belonging to the complainant-party and he named certain male and female members as per the list filed by the prosecution indicating to be the sons and daughters of late Itwari Lal. It is admitted by the learned Sessions judge that he did ask the person present in the court regarding the whereabouts of those witnesses as also that of two other persons purporting to be the tenants of Itwari Lal deceased It is also admitted by the learned Sessions Judge that he did tell that person that they should be ready to accept the summonses and be present on the next date of hearing It is asserted by the learned Sessions Judge that both the parties desired that the case be decided expeditiously on day to day basis by giving top priority and that it must be finished before he proceeds on leave. The learned Judge has refuted the allegations made in Paras 3 to 6, of the affidavit of the petitioner. It has been explained by the learned Judge that none of the accused-persons were known to him in any capacity nor any relative of such accused had met him nor he had talked about the result of the case with any one much less assuring the relations of the accused that the case would end in acquittal. It is also asserted that it was absolutely wrong that he had been annoyed by the filing of the earlier revision petition or the transfer application. No malice is stated to have been entertained by the learned Sessions Judge. According to the learned Judge, the complainant-party is labouring under misconception and appears to have been misguided and swayed by rumour which do not have any bearing on the merits of the case in any manner, 5. It may be straightaway pointed out that courts are presumed to act strictly in accordance with law. This is the basic presumption which has to be borne in mind. It may be straightaway pointed out that courts are presumed to act strictly in accordance with law. This is the basic presumption which has to be borne in mind. A case which is being tried by a court cannot be transferred to another court in a routine manner It is also desirable that the cases should be finally disposed of as expeditiously as possible. In a Sessions Trial, the witnesses are normally expected to be examined continuously without any break and on day to day basis. In case the examination of witnesses is delayed with the passage of time the memory is likely to fade and chances of fabricated version are enhanced. As such, there was nothing wrong in the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge that the witnesses be served quickly and the trial be concluded expeditiously. At the same time, it cannot be presumed that any judicial Officer would be prejudiced or entertain malice against any party that prefers an appeal or revision against any order or I judgment passed by him. 6. It may, however, be pointed out that where a party has a reasonable apprehension that a fair and impartial trial or enquiry cannot be had, or where the ends of justice make it expedient, a transfer should be ordered. It may also be emphasised that it is of paramount importance that parties arraigned before the courts should have confidence in the impartiality of the courts. In fact, it is the duty of the High Court at all events to clear away every thing which might reasonably engender suspicion and distrust in the court and so to promote and maintain in the public a feeling of confidence in the administration of justice, which is so essential for social order and security. It is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. It is not any and every apprehension in the mind of a person that can be a ground for transfer but it should be a reasonable apprehension, i.e. an apprehension which may be considered reasonable. 7. It is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. It is not any and every apprehension in the mind of a person that can be a ground for transfer but it should be a reasonable apprehension, i.e. an apprehension which may be considered reasonable. 7. In Shakti Raj Jangi Ram v State, [1969 Cr LJ 1161], I.D. Dua, C.J. in a petition for transfer observed as under : "................One important object in transferring cases, it may be emphasised is, to clear away every thing which might engender suspicion and distrust of the Tribunals and to take steps to promote the feeling of confidence in the administration of justice because this is essential to social order and security..............................................Common human failings and likely reaction of incidents, like the present on an average human mind may appropriately be taken into account when considering the question of expediency in the ends of justice for the purpose of transferring cases from one competent court to another." 8. In our judicial system, there is no control of the executive over the judiciary and its independence cannot be doubted. The petitioner appears to have an apprehension in his mind that since the learned Sessions Judge initially framed a charge under Section 3 4 Part-1, IPC against the accused persons, he would not convict the accused-persons under Section 302, IPC even though the charge has been altered to Section 302, IPC. It is pointed out by Mr. O.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that inspite of the fact that at the instance of the High Court, the learned Sessions Judge altered the charge to Section 302, IPC instead of Section 304 Part-1, IPC, but in his order, he observed as follows : "Alternatively it has been urged by the learned defence counsel relying upon the observations made in Ajit Singh and others v State of Punjab, (reported in 1979 CLR (Punj & Har) that all the accused persons much less S/Shri Prakash Rana, Shakti C hand and Pannu accused can claim benefit to the extent that be has caused individually non-fatal injury and, therefore, the same does not attract the application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In other words, according to them their act at the most would be amounting to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code This defence is open to the accused-persons at all stages. However, in view of the order of the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, I cannot charge the accused under Sections 304 Part-I mainly on this ground, though it emerges from the material collected by the prosecution and placed before this Court. This direction to this Court is that in case the case is held to fall under Section 304 Part-I, then this Court is bound to specify under which of the exceptions of Section 300 the case falls................" 9. On the basis of the above observations, the apprehension entertained by the complainant party that they would not have a fair and impartial trial cannot be completely ruled out. Mr. M.R. Chaudhary, who appeared for respondent No.1, has also contended that in view of certain circumstances detailed in the order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 22-11-1983, it is desirable that the case is transferred to some other Sessions Judge, for trial. 10. Notices were sent to respondents 2 to 17 in this petition. They are present in court. It is frankly stated by them that they have no objection if the case is transferred to some other court for trial. They have, however, emphasised that the case be finally decided as expeditiously as possible since they are detained in judicial lock-up from the date of their arrest. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and bearing in mind the fact that the deceased was a Harijan and so are the members of his family, I am of the view that this case be transferred to some other competent court. The question that now survives for determination is as to which court the case be transferred for trial. Solan is quite near to Simla as compared to Nahan .The accused-persons are lodged in the judicial lock-up at Solan Most of the witnesses are also from Solan. Keeping in view the convenience of the witnesses and considering other factors, it is proper that the case is transferred from the Court of Sessions, Judge, Solan, to the Court of Sessions Judge at Simla. 12. Keeping in view the convenience of the witnesses and considering other factors, it is proper that the case is transferred from the Court of Sessions, Judge, Solan, to the Court of Sessions Judge at Simla. 12. As such, the case is transferred from the Court of Sessions Judge, Solan, to the Court of the Sessions Judge at Simla for disposal. 13. It is desirable that the trial of the case is expedited and concluded as early as it is possible. 14. Before parting, it may be pointed out that my observations while disposing of this petition are without prejudice to the merits of the case. 15. The application is accordingly allowed. Application allowed.