SUDHANGSU SEKHAR GANGULY. J. ( 1 ) THE facts leading to the present revisional application may be summarized as follows: ( 2 ) THE opposite party No. 1 instituted Mise case No. 295 of 1980 presumably u/s 125 Cr. P. C. for maintenance for herself as well as for her two daughters against the petitioner. On 15/6/85 the petitioner filed an application before Shri S. K. Roy the learned Magistrate hearing the matter for directing the opposite part to produce the original of a letter said to have been sent to her by Mahadeb Sanbui, a maternal uncle of hers advising her to patch up her quarrels with her husband. The learned Magistrate di4 not pass any order on that application and adjourned the ease to 20/8/85. On 20/8/85 the learned Magistrate took up the case for hearing at 1. 00 p. m. It was brought to his notice that the learned Advocate for the petitioner was engaged in a Sessions case. Inspite or that the learned Magistrate closed the case at 1. 25 p. m. (annexure-B ). The learned Advocate for the petitioner arrived at his court at 1. 28 p m. but the learned Magistrate refused to hear anything and inspite of an application for recalling his order closing the case fixed 7/10/85 for arguments though there remained about seven more witnesses to be examined on his side (annexure-B ). On 7/10/85 the petitioner filed another application requesting the learned Magistrate to pass his final order on his application filed on 20/8/85 (annexure-C ). The learned Magistrate allowed his prayer subject to payment of Rs. 250/- as costs to the opposite party No. 1. ( 3 ) THE aforementioned circumstances led the petitioner to file an application u/s 408 Cr. P. C, before Shri S. N. Ganguly the learned district and Session Judge, Hooghly for transferring the case to the court of some other Judicial Magistrate for disposal. This application was registered as Cr1. Misc. case No. 945 of 1985. It appears further that against the aforementioned order passed by the learned Magistrate on 7/10/85 the petitioner also came up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge and it was registered as criminal motion No. 163 of 1985. The learned Judge-so it appears from his order in Cr1 Misc. case No, 945 of 1985-allowed the criminal revision finding the impugned order as unjust and legal. The learned Judge-so it appears from his order in Cr1 Misc. case No, 945 of 1985-allowed the criminal revision finding the impugned order as unjust and legal. Inspite of that he concluded that the proceedings of the case and the orders dated 15/6/85. 20/8/85 and 7/10/85 did not show that the learned Magistrate had become biased towards the petitioner. Finding the apprehensions of the petitioner absolutely baseless, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed his application for transfer. Hence, this Revisional Application against his order. ( 4 ) WE could not hear the opposite party No. 1 or her learned Advocate. The notice meant for her came back refused. We had, therefore, to hear the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the State and dispose of the present matter in the absence of the opposite party No. 1. ( 5 ) NOW, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as detailed above we agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the proceedings of the case and the orders dated 15/6/85, 20/8/85 and 7/10/85 do not reveal any bias against the petitioner. At worst they show the learned Magistrates annoyance at the failure on the part of the learned Advocate of the petitioner to be present in his court when the case was taken up for hearing on 20/8/85 annoyance which led him to pass an order on 7/10/85 which was found by the learned Sessions Judge as illegal and unjustified. But then as it has been observed again and again it is of fundamental importance that justice should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. As it has also been observed, in such a case as the present the test is not whether bias has actually crept into the consideration of the Judge; the test is whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to the tribunai might have operated against him, Manaklal1, Failure on the part of the learned Magistrate to pass an order on the application of the petitioner dated 15/6/85 calling upon him to direct the opp. party No. 1 to produce the original letter allegedly sent to her by Mahadeb Sanbui, closing the case of the petitioner at 1. party No. 1 to produce the original letter allegedly sent to her by Mahadeb Sanbui, closing the case of the petitioner at 1. 25 p. m. on 20/8/85 for no fault on his part (a layman does not understand that his lawyer's fault may be considered as his own in the eye of law), refusal to recall the order closing the case, ultimately agreeing to do that but on condition of payment of Rs. 250/- and that too to the opp. party No. 1 all this might indeed cause despair to the petitioner and breed an apprehension in his mind that the learned Magistrate had become prejudiced towards him; We do not believe that the petitioner will not get justice from the hands of the learned Magistrate. We fell all the same, however, that things have taken such a turn in this case as to make the petitioner apprehensive that he will not get a fair deal from the learned Magistrate In the circumstances stated we are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge should not have rejected but allowed the application for the petitioner u/s 408 Cr. P. C. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances stated above the present revisional application is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly dismissing the Criminal Misc. case No. 945 of 1985 are hereby set aside and the said case is hereby allowed. The learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly is hereby requested to transfer the aforementioned case from the file of Shri S. K. Roy, Judicial Magistrate to the file of any other Judicial Magistrate of Hooghly Sadar for disposal. Revision allowed .