Judgment G. M. LODHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a second transfer petition filed by accused petitioner Jai Singh, who is being prosecuted under section 307 I. P. C. in criminal case number 2/1985, pending trial before the learned Addi. District and Sessions Judge, No. 1, Alwar. ( 2 ) THE first transfer application was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, as well as by this court as it was held that merely because, learned Advocate, refused to appear in a particular court, the case cannot be transferred. ( 3 ) MR. T. N. Bhargava, learned Advocate, used to appear in this case, gave an affidavit that the conduct of the Presiding Officer, Shri Ramchandra is such that no (comments) self respecting Advocate, can appear in his court. I would not like to pass any correct comment on this affidavit, on the ground of transfer application, which has been rejected by Honble Mr. Justice N K. M. Kasliwal, on 25-8-86. ( 4 ) I would like only to add that filing of such affidavit making such sweeping allegation against the Presiding Officer, is a serious matter either way. It becomes much more serious when the Presiding Officer, in spite of directions of this court to send his comments he has chosen not to send any comment. ( 5 ) SINCE the comments have already been invited and not received, I think that no useful purpose would be served by admitting this case and keeping it pending as the trial of a sessions case would be held. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I have heard Mr. Maloo, learnedt counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Purohit, learned Dy. Govt, Advocate, financial and on their joint request I am proceeding to decide this transfer application finally. ( 7 ) GROUND No. 5, of the transfer application reads as under That the case was fixed on 17-9-86 awaiting order in the transfer application. On that day, the petitioners were present in the Court, the learned Presiding Officer made un-warranted remarks and categorically stated Tunne jo karna tha kar liya aur lagayo transfer application aur uska natija bhugat lena ab thuare aur tunahare vakil to pata chalegat1. The learned Presiding Officer, is thus, prejudiced against the accused petitioners as well as their counsel and the petitioners have got no hope at all that they can even get justice in the Court of Shri Ram Chandra RHJS. The learned Presiding Officer, is thus, prejudiced against the accused petitioners as well as their counsel and the petitioners have got no hope at all that they can even get justice in the Court of Shri Ram Chandra RHJS. Since no denial has been made by the Presiding Officer Shri Ramchandra, of this allegation, it will have to be assumed that the allegation is prima-facie correct because it is supported by an affidavit of Shri Jai Singh. ( 8 ) IF a Presiding Officer, feels annoyed and enraged on account of transfer application having been moved against him and tells litigant that he will have to pay the price for it, as alleged in para number 5, of the application in the following words mldk urhtk Hkqxr ysuk vc regkjsa vksj rqegkjs odhy dks irk pysxk ( 9 ) SINCE above allegation has not been rebutted or contradicted by the Presiding Officer, even though the comments were called for the order dated 22-11-1987, it would be in the interest of justice to transfer this case to any other court. The learned District Judge, Alwar, is therefore, directed to try this case himself or transfer it to the court of learned Addi. Distt. Judge, No. 2, as per the administrative convenience. ( 10 ) I am not expressing any opinion on the alleged allegation contained in para number 6, (or 5) of the application because they are too vague and simply because some litigant enters into loose talks, the conduct of the Presiding Officer, cannot be condoned. The result is that the transfer application is accepted on the limited ground mentioned above. Application allowed.