S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application by the two accused persons for transfer of a criminal case from Rourkela to Cuttack for trial. ( 2 ) CHARGE-SHEET was submitted against the petitioners for the offences under sections 292 and 293 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of publication of materials in an issue of the illustrated Weekly of India on the basis of an information lodged by Advocate of Rourkela In Plant Site Police Station, Petitioners moved this Court for exercise of inherent power to quash the cognizance taken. After hearing, cognizance under section 293, I. P. C. held to be an abuse of the process of the Court and was quashed. Petitioner assailed the order unsuccessfully in the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the case was posted to 19-1-1988 for recording evidence. The three Advocate witnesses, i. e. informant (P. W. 1), another Advocate (P. W. 2) and the Associate Public Prosecutor (P. W. 3), have been examined in chief. At this stage the application has been filed Invoking the power of this Court under section 407, Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 3 ) TWENTY witnesses have been named in the charge sheet in support of the prosecution case. Besides the informant (P. W. 1), there are two other Advocates as witnesses. One of them is P. W. 3 who happens to be the Associate Public Prosecutor in the Court of the Sub-divisional judicial Magistrate where the prosecution is pending and another is an Advocate claimed to be of eminence at Rourkela (P. W. 2 ). Five of the witnesses are from Bombay and the rest are of Rourkela. To conduct the prosecution, State Government has appointed one of its Additional Government Advocates of this Court to be the Special Public Prosecutor who appeared on 19-1-1988. Petitioners have engaged two senior Advocates of this Court to defend them. In respect of the self, same publication, a complaint has been filed in Cuttack Court in which cognizance has not yet been taken and the matter is pending enquiry. Petitioner No. 1 is to come from Bombay and petitioner No. 2 is to come from Calcutta to face the trial. On account of the nature of duty performed by them, they are normally to move from place to place very often. Petitioner No. 11 is also required to leave India regularly in discharge of his duty. Petitioner No. 1 is to come from Bombay and petitioner No. 2 is to come from Calcutta to face the trial. On account of the nature of duty performed by them, they are normally to move from place to place very often. Petitioner No. 11 is also required to leave India regularly in discharge of his duty. ( 4 ) MR. P. Palit, the learned counsel for the petitioners, from the inception made it clear that the petitioners have no grievance against the conduct of the trial by the learned Magistrate. The transfer is sought for in the ends of Justice and for convenience of parties and witnesses. ( 5 ) MR. P. Palit, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that petitioner No. 1 is to come from Bombay and petitioner No. 2 is to come from Calcutta to instruct their lawyers at Cuttack wherefrom they are to proceed to Rourkela to attend the Court for hearing. Thus, leaving Bombay to reach back thereafter attending the Court would take the petitioner No. 1 at least five days on each occasion and four days for petitioner No. 2 from Calcutta. In view of the nature of works of the petitioners, time consumed for their journey amounts to harassment to the petitioners, which can be avoided to a great extent if the trial is held at Cuttack. Mr. Palit made it clear that there is no special attraction of the petitioners for trial at Cuttack and the petitioners would have no grievance if trial is held in any Court established at a place i4 and around Bhubaneswar where petitioners can reach by flight to save time for which they are hard pressed. Reduction of the journey time will be beneficial and convenient to the petitioners. It would also assist in early finality of the trial, which is a public policy. Assessing the comparative convenience and Inconvenience of the prosecution and the defence, Mr. Palit submitted that the transfer of the case will not cause much inconvenience to prosecution witnesses who are to come from Rourkela once only. Cuttack or any place around Bhubaneswar would be equally convenient or inconvenient to the witnesses coming from Bombay. As regards the investigation officer, he holds a transferable post and any place of trial would not be inconvenient for him. Cuttack or any place around Bhubaneswar would be equally convenient or inconvenient to the witnesses coming from Bombay. As regards the investigation officer, he holds a transferable post and any place of trial would not be inconvenient for him. The Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel being of Cuttack, trial in Cuttack or around it would be more convenient in this respect. Added to it, Mr. Palit submitted that the pendency of the complaint at Cuttack for the self-same publication is an additional circumstance for transfer of the case to Cuttack for convenience of the petitioners. ( 6 ) MR. Palit relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Alekh Dutta v. Khatramohan Sahu1, where it has been observed In cases of transfer the interest not only of the accused, but also of the complainant has to be looked into. There is a general consensus of judicial opinion that in matters of transfer greater emphasis is to be laid on the conveniences and Interest of the accused rather than of the prosecutor. To my mind, while doing to, the interest of the prosecutor and his right to Institute criminal proceedings permissible under the law should not also be unreasonably whittled down. In cases of transfer, therefore, a balance is to be struck. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as a matter of principle. A prayer for transfer is to he considered always with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. Applying the aforesaid principle, Mr. Palit submitted that this Court should lean in favour of transfer of the case. ( 7 ) RESISTING the prayer, the learned Additional Government Advocate relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Mrs. Menaka Sanjay Gandhi and another v. Mils Rani Jethmalani2, where relative convenience and easy availability of legal services have been brought within the category of mini grievances. So classifying it was observed:. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. . ( 8 ) IN Baljit Singh and another v. State of Jand K and others3 Supreme Court could not accept the decision of the High Court directing transfer of a case to a place from where a large number of witnesses were to be examined. Mr. . ( 8 ) IN Baljit Singh and another v. State of Jand K and others3 Supreme Court could not accept the decision of the High Court directing transfer of a case to a place from where a large number of witnesses were to be examined. Mr. Palit has relied upon this decision in support of his contention for transfer on the ground that examination of 15 witnesses from Rourkela should not be a circumstance to be considered either in favour or against the prayer for transfer. Learned Additional Government Advocate has relied upon this decision in respect of the observation: The normal course of things should not have been lightly interfered with and the case should have been allowed to be tried by the Court, which had territorial jurisdiction. . . TI Without referring to the said decision, which was not brought to my notice. I had also held in Bijaya Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa4 that the legislative intention is that the cases are tried in the Courts established for the same. In the said decision Balasore would have been nearer to the place of occurrence than Baripada, which would, have been convenient to the accused as well as the prosecution witnesses. Yet I did not consider the same to be a strong ground for transfer keeping the legislative Intention in view. ( 9 ) MR. Pal it relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in under Singh and others v. Kartar Singh5, where one of the grounds which was given importance was the difficulty of the accused to attend Court of trial on account of his poverty which was the considered with the comparative less difficult situation of the complainant who was the only witness in the calc. Difficulty in attendance in the Court of trial on account of some wants whether of time or money may be a circumstance if it is not self created or can be avoided. In case of poverty on account of want or money the accused may not be able to make good the same and thus, a situation arises which is beyond his control. In case of want of time, the accused can reduce his time in other engagements to attend the Court by engaging others properly instructed to do the job for him. In case of want of time, the accused can reduce his time in other engagements to attend the Court by engaging others properly instructed to do the job for him. Where the same could not be possible on account of engagements with relation to State affairs, the question may be different. It would depend upon facts and circumstances or each case and nature of the job performed. In the earlier stated transfer application decided by me, I had observed that the difficulty which can be easily eradicated by the accused cannot be a ground for transfer which Is an exception to the general rule that trial is to be held in Court having territorial jurisdiction. To protect the petitioners from the difficulty as pointed out, I can only borrow the expression of the Supreme Court in AIR 1979 S. C 468 (supra) to the effect: The trial court should readily consider the liberal exercise of the power to grant for the accused exemption from personal appearance save on crucial occasions. ( 10 ) PENDENCY of a complaint at Cuttack in respect of the offence arising out of the same publication cannot be a ground at this stage to be considered when it is only being enquired into for considering whether process would be issued, where the accused has no role to play. ( 11 ) MR. Palit submitted that the information having been lodged by an Advocate and two of the witnesses being Advocates of standing one of whom is a Public Prosecutor In the Court of the Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate, the same may have some effect on the trial and it may not appear to be a fair and Impartial trial though the learned Magistrate may be fair and impartial in conduct of the trial. Such apprehension is unfounded and unreasonable. With the traditional judicial system in this republic position or status of a party or a witness is given no importance unless the same touches the merit of the dispute and is necessary for assessing the conduct of a party or a witness. I can only express that the learned Magistrate shall be very careful in assessing such evidence so that an apprehension of absence of fair trial in some mind even though unreasonable on the face of it shall be proved to be wrong. I can only express that the learned Magistrate shall be very careful in assessing such evidence so that an apprehension of absence of fair trial in some mind even though unreasonable on the face of it shall be proved to be wrong. An Advocate when becoming a witness is to be considered as any other witness, specially in criminal trials and much weight ought not to be given to his status as a member of the profession unless the evidence has some bearing to his professional acumen. In such circumstances, change of the place of trial would have no effect since each Court is supposed to consider the evidence in that light. I can only observe that it is unsafe to Jay down a principle that an. Advocate becoming a witness is likely to tilt the balance affecting fair trial. ( 12 ) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate submitted that delay in approaching this Court for transfer when the recording of evidence has already commenced and when the petitioners could have prayed for transfer on the earlier occasion when they approached the Court should be considered adversely against the petitioners. I am not inclined to accept the submission since I am unable to draw an inference from the facts of this case that the petitioners were not diligent to defend them or have oblique motive to move for transfer. ( 13 ) IT is true that many mini grievance Individually when joined together lead to magnified grievance to weight in favour or transfer. In the present case, however, the mioi grievances have not been such which if joined together would make a major grievance either to bring the case within the scope of ends of justice or convenience of parties and witnesses and I am not satisfied that fair and Impartial trial which is the first imperative for dispensation of justice would be impared In any manner. ( 14 ) IN the result, the application has no merit which is accordingly, rejected. .