Judgment :- 1. This is a petition filed u/S. 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer S.C. 61/85 from the file of the 4th Addl. Sessions Court, Ernakulam to any other court of competent jurisdiction. The main allegations made by the petitioner are as follows:- During the course of the examination of P.W.1, the prosecutor was putting leading questions which were given acquiescence by the learned Judge. Though the defence objected to the same, the learned judge was completely indifferent. The prosecutor put a leading question "whether anybody did anything against the accused." The witness answered that his sisters and brother-in-law threw something which they got at that time. Without recording that answer the court asked the witness whether those acts resulted in any injury to the accused. The defence made a request that, that question should be recorded as court question and that the answer recorded separately. The learned judge refused and remarked that it is the discretion of the court to put any question to the witness and that nobody can stop it. When questions were asked regarding the position of the hand of the deceased at the time he received the injury, the court expressed its displeasure and told the defence counsel that it is impossible to record the answer given by the witness. When questions were put regarding the location of the hand at the time of the infliction of the injury the learned judge remarked that all these things are unnecessary and irrelevant as the prosecution has produced a diagram in the postmortem certificate which will correctly give the exact location of the injury sustained by the deceased. Those would show that the learned judge has studied the entire prosecution records meticulously and has got a complete picture of the case even before the examination of the witnesses commenced. This shows that the learned judge has already formed impression about the prosecution case. After completing the examination of P.W.1 the learned judge did not read his deposition in open court in the presence and hearing of the accused. The answers given by P.W.2. the sister of P.W.1, were inaudible to the accused and the prosecutor. As the witness box was very close to the learned judge the court recorded the evidence which could not be heard by the defence and the prosecution. The answers given by P.W.2. the sister of P.W.1, were inaudible to the accused and the prosecutor. As the witness box was very close to the learned judge the court recorded the evidence which could not be heard by the defence and the prosecution. When this fact was brought to the notice of the court the learned judge observed: "There is a humanitarian consideration in this case and it is for you to listen and understand." The attitude of the learned judge is that the court can dispense justice even without the assistance of the defence. In the above state of affairs the petitioner apprehends that he will never get justice at the hands of that court. 2. Since serious allegations have been made in the petition, its copy was sent to the learned judge and his remarks were called. The learned judge has given the following details. The case came up for trial on 17-3-86. On that day the first accused alone was present. Counsel for the third accused filed an application for adjournment stating that A3 is laid up (A2 is no more). The case was then adjourned to 18-3-86 and C.Ws 1 to 3, who were summoned for the day were bound over to the 18th. On 18th the examination of C.W.1 as P.W.1 alone was completed and C.W.2 was partly examined as P.W.2. On that day C.Ws 1 to 7 were present in court. On account of the dearth of time deposition of P.W.1 was not read over in open court. On 19-3-86 P.W.2 and C.Ws 3 to 12 were present for examination. The first accused filed Crl. M.C. 206/86 for adjournment alleging that he will not get proper and legal trial from the court. Therefore the trial was adjourned to 1-4-86 to enable the accused to move the appropriate forum. P.W.2 and other witnesses were bound over for 1-4-86. On 1-4-86 the first accused was absent. His counsel applied for exemption on the ground of illness. The case was adjourned to 2-4-86. On that day the learned counsel appearing for the accused filed an application for adjournment stating that he has moved the High Court for transfer of the case. Thereupon the witnesses were discharged and the case was adjourned to 27-5-86 for receipt of stay order it any from the High Court. The case was adjourned to 2-4-86. On that day the learned counsel appearing for the accused filed an application for adjournment stating that he has moved the High Court for transfer of the case. Thereupon the witnesses were discharged and the case was adjourned to 27-5-86 for receipt of stay order it any from the High Court. The prosecutor was not permitted to put any leading questions to P.W.1 to the detriment of the accused. The allegation that suggestive questions put by the prosecutor were not recorded as questions is false. He had expressed that it would be practically impossible to record in writing the position of the hand of the deceased when the injury was inflicted, as shown by P.W.1, without taking a photograph or drawing a diagram. The answer given by the witness was recorded in the manner which is capable of recording. The deposition of P.W.1 was not read over for want of lime. The deposition of P.W.1 was truly and correctly recorded in open court. After satisfying the correctness of the deposition P.W.1 has signed the same. To save time the court proceeded to record the deposition of P.W.2. P.W.2 is an unmarried girl of 23, who according to the prosecution is an eye witness to the incident where her father, mother and brother-in-law were stabbed to death. When the details of the incident were brought out in the chief examination P.W.2 started weeping. This was disliked by counsel. Then the counsel was told "You should give some concession to this witness taking into consideration the humanitarian aspect involved." He has never stated "It is for you to listen and understand" as alleged in the petition. The witness was asked to stop weeping and to answer the questions put by the prosecutor loudly. It is not correct to say that ignoring the request made by the counsel for the defence the court was giving encouragement to P.W.2 to continue her statements in a most low tone. Since the court room is very small and the witness box was very near to the dock of the accused and to the seat of counsel any reasonable person could easily follow the answers given by P.W.2. There was no occasion for creating any apprehension or anxiety in the mind of the first accused that he will not get proper justice at the hands of this court. There was no occasion for creating any apprehension or anxiety in the mind of the first accused that he will not get proper justice at the hands of this court. The last paragraph of the remarks reads as follows: "Though the allegations in the petition Crl. M.C. 313/86 are false, baseless and unfounded, calculated with some ulterior motive of which the counsel for the petitioner alone knows and such dubious methods of the counsels appearing for the accused persons in murder cases to make cheap popularity among the litigant public that they are capable of even transferring a murder case pending in one court to another court of their choice on flimsy grounds should be discouraged by the Hon'ble High Court by all means, in view of the fact I may find it extremely difficult to proceed with the trial of this case in case the present counsel of the 1st accused, namely Shri. T.V. Prabhakaran is holding the brief, I have no objection in transferring the case to any other Court of competent jurisdiction which the Hon'ble High Court so pleases." 3. The Bench and the Bar are two integral parts of the system of administration of justice. They can be considered to be the two sides of the same coin. The co-operation between these two is the foundation on which the functioning of the judiciary rests. The relationship between the two must necessarily be cordial and based on mutual respect and co-operation. The smooth and successful functioning of courts rests on the mutual respect between the Bench and the Bar. The slightest ill-feeling between the two will undermine' the entire judicial system. By their conduct judicial officers should not give room for apprehension in the mind of the public that they are not impartial. They should conduct themselves in such a way that the prestige and image of the judiciary is maintained. If they give room for suspecting the impartiality, integrity and dignity of the office by their own conduct, they are digging the grave of the existing system of administration of justice. 4. Sessions Cases are to be tried day-to-day. Adjournments are in the ordinary circumstances to be refused. In the case with which I am concerned, the entire scheme of posting has been upset by the accused asking for adjournments on the ground of illness. Witness cited had to be bound over to the next day. 4. Sessions Cases are to be tried day-to-day. Adjournments are in the ordinary circumstances to be refused. In the case with which I am concerned, the entire scheme of posting has been upset by the accused asking for adjournments on the ground of illness. Witness cited had to be bound over to the next day. On the third day of the posting, there were 12 witnesses present in court. Out of them the examination of only one witness namely P.W.1 was over. The inconvenience that has been caused to the court is numerous and is not to be ignored. The stress and strain under which the officers of the Subordinate judiciary are functioning are not also to be lost sight of. 5. The allegations made by the petitioner that suggestive questions put by the prosecutor were not recorded as questions and that the court eliciting answers favourable to the prosecution are emphatically denied by the learned judge in the remarks sent up by him. I do not find any ground to doubt the correctness of these statements. In a Sessions trial, the trial judge is not to play the part of an umpire. He must take active part in the proceedings before him. In discharging such a duty if he puts certain questions to the witness it can never be said that he is eliciting answers to help the prosecution. 6. The next allegation levelled against the learned judge is that he was not directing P.W. 2 to give the answers loudly so as to enable the accused and the defence counsel to hear her. This allegation is also denied by the learned judge stating "Since the court room is very small and the witness box is very near to the dock of the accused and the seat of the counsel any reasonable and sensible person could easily follow the answers given by P.W. 2." In view of the fact that the court room is very small and the witness stand is close to the the dock of the accused, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. 7. P.W.2 is stated to be an eye witness to the incident in which her father, mother and brother-in-law were stabbed to death. When she was narrating that incident she started weeping. 7. P.W.2 is stated to be an eye witness to the incident in which her father, mother and brother-in-law were stabbed to death. When she was narrating that incident she started weeping. It is quite natural for a girl like P.W.2 to burst into tears in such a situation. It appears that the learned defence counsel did not like the behaviour of the witness. The learned judge then observed: "You should give some concession to this witness taking into consideration the humanitarian aspect involved." This observation cannot be taken as one showing the bias of the Presiding Officer towards the prosecution. 8. The next contention raised by the petitioner is that the deposition of P.W.1 was not read over in open court. The learned Sessions Judge has remarked that on account of the pressure of work and dearth of time the evidence was not read in open court. S.278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure casts a duty on the court to have the deposition read over to the witness in the presence of the accused and or his pleader. This duty cannot be ignored. In the decision Dasan v. State of Kerala (1986 KLT 598) a Bench of this Court observed: "The Judicial Officers will note for guidance that the provisions of S.278 Crl. Procedure Code should be complied with." The Bench further proceed to state that the non-compliance with S.278 is only curable irregularity. In the instant case the examination of only one witness has been completed. The learned judge will strictly comply with the provisions of S.278 in the case of other witnesses. 9. Yet another contention that is raised by the petitioner is that the position of the hand shown by the witness in court as that of the deceased when he received the injury, was not recorded by the learned Judge. In answer to this what the learned judge states is: "It is true that I expressed that it would be practically impossible to record in writing the position of the hand of one of the deceased when the injury was inflicted upon him as shown by him when the counsel for the accused attempted to elicit through the evidence of P.W.1 without taking a photograph or drawing a diagram. But the answer given by the witness was recorded in the manner which is capable of recording". But the answer given by the witness was recorded in the manner which is capable of recording". I do not find any ground to disbelieve the statement made by the learned Judge. The demonstration stated to have been made by P.W.1 could not have been recorded in the way the learned defence counsel wanted it to be written. That is no ground for transferring a case to another court. 10. In last paragraph of the remarks, quoted above, the learned judge has used intemperate language in stating that the defence counsel is capable of even transferring a murder case pending in one court to another court of Ms choice on flimsy grounds. This casts aspersions not only on the defence counsel but also on other Sessions Judges and even on the High Court. The learned judge ought to have used words with more restraint. At this juncture I consider it advantageous to quote the following passage from Govindan Babu v. State of Kerala (1985 K.L.N. 624): "By their conduct judicial officers should not give room for apprehension that they are not impartial. Judges are expected to conduct themselves in such a way that the prestige and image of the judiciary, which is the back bone of a democratic set up, is maintained If we give room for suspecting the impartiality, integrity and dignity of the office by our own conduct and actions, we are digging the grave of judiciary." 11. Strong words have been used by both sides in the instant case. Those words cannot be taken to have anything personal. The entire incident must be considered as a nightmare. I hope the learned Sessions judge and the learned defence counsel will rise to the occasion and ignore the entire incident, create a congenial atmosphere and discharge their respective responsibilities in reaching the ultimate goal, dispensation of justice. I will once again caution, that officers should be careful in seeing that nothing happens during the proceedings in court which may endanger its serenity and decorum. The conduct of the officers should be such that it should inspire confidence in the minds of the public that administration of justice will be promoted. 12. I will once again caution, that officers should be careful in seeing that nothing happens during the proceedings in court which may endanger its serenity and decorum. The conduct of the officers should be such that it should inspire confidence in the minds of the public that administration of justice will be promoted. 12. With the hope that the learned counsel appearing for the accused and the learned Sessions Judge will ignore the entire episode and will cooperate sincerely in meeting out justice to the accused in accordance with law, this petition is dismissed.