Judgment : This petition is under Sec.407 of the Crl.P.C. (for short ‘the Code’) by the accused in Sessions Case No.24 of 1992 pending in the Third Additional District Court, Ernakulam for transfer of the said case to this court or to any other court. Petitioner avers in the affidavit to this petition as well as in the amended petition that the petitioner is charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Secs.20(b)(i) and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’). The allegation is that the petitioner was found in possession of 100 grams of ganja and 10 ampoules of bupernorphino injunction tidigestic on 8. 1991 at about 10 p.m. from the rear verandha of the G.C.DA. Complex in Shanmugham Road, Ernakulam. According to the petitioner, the prosecution case is that the said articles were hidden in the waist portion of the dothi worn by him. It is alleged by the petitioner that, from the commencement of the trial, learned Sessions Judge was taking a partisan attitude. According to the petitioner after the cross-examination and re-examination of the prosecution, witnesses, the Judge used to put question to reinforce the prosecution case purporting to act under Sec.165 of the Evidence Act. It is contended by the petitioner that, when the Circle Inspector was cross-examined, he admitted that he did not find any belt around the waist of the petitioner and that the petitioner had summoned and examined the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Aluva and the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Ernakulam as D.Ws.l and 2 who stated that the petitioner was wearing a belt and that, the belt was taken into custody by D.W. 1. According to the petitioner, the nature of questions put by the learned Judge to the witnesses, particularly to D.Ws.l and 2 would show that the Judge was assuming the role of a prosecutor. The petitioner has extracted the questions by a the court and their answers in pages 3 to 10 of the affidavit to the amended petition. 2. My learned predecessor called for the remarks of the Sessions Judge. In the remarks of the learned Judge, it is stated that, the charge was under Secs.20(b)(i) and 21 of the Act. The petitioner has extracted the questions by a the court and their answers in pages 3 to 10 of the affidavit to the amended petition. 2. My learned predecessor called for the remarks of the Sessions Judge. In the remarks of the learned Judge, it is stated that, the charge was under Secs.20(b)(i) and 21 of the Act. Learned Judge denies the allegation that questions were put to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case and stales that such questions were put only to ascertain the truth and also the admissibility of the evidence. It is asserted by the learned Judge that she did not act in a partisan manner and adds that, “As the trial of the case is already concluded the transfer of the case will only embarrass and delay the proceedings. There is no reason for apprehending any unfair deal for the accused too. Still, I am not keen that the case should be disposed of by me.” 3. As per Sec.165 of the Evidence Act, a Judge is entitled to ask any question in any form, at any time, to any witness about any fact relevant or irrelevant. The freedom of the Judge to ask questions thus is clear from Sec.165 of the Evidence Act. If the Judge thinks that, the case has not been thoroughly explored, he is entitled to put as many questions as he likes. But he must not in doing so descend into the arena. Thus, caution is necessary to see that the Judge does not give an impression of assuming the role of a Prosecutor. 4. In the decision in Yuill v. Yuill 1945 All E.R. 183 at 189, it is stated: "A Judge who observes the demeanour of the witnesses while they are being examined by counsel has from his detached position a much more favourable opportunity of forming a just appreciation than a judge who himself conducts the examination. If he takes the latter course he, so to speak, descends into the arena and is liable to have his vision clouded by the dust of the conflict. Unconsciously he deprives himself of the advantage of calm and dispassionate observation. If he takes the latter course he, so to speak, descends into the arena and is liable to have his vision clouded by the dust of the conflict. Unconsciously he deprives himself of the advantage of calm and dispassionate observation. It is further to be remarked, as everyone who has had experience of these matters knows, that the demeanour of a witness is apt to be very different when he is being questioned by the judge to what it is when he is being questioned by counsel, particularly when the Judge’s examination is, as it was in the present case, prolonged and covers practically the whole of the crucial matters which are in issue." Again in the decision in Jones v. National Coal Board, 1957 All E.R. 155 at 159, it is stated: "Yes, he must keep his vision unclouded. It is all very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage round her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth; and the less dust there is about the better.....The judge’s part in all this is to hearken to the evidence, only himself asking questions of witnesses when it is necessary to clear up any point that has been overlooked or left obscure to see that the advocates behave themselves seemly and keep to the rules laid down by law, to exclude irrelevancies and discourage repetition; to make sure by wise intervention that he follows the points that the advocates are making and can assess their worth; and at the end to make up his mind where the truth lies. If he goes beyond this, he drops the mantle of a judge and assumes the robe of an advocate; and the change does not become him well." 5. The Supreme Court in the decision in Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, 1981 Crl L.J. 609, while emphasising that a judge should not assume the role of a referee or an umpire and to allow the trial to develop into a contest between the prosecution and the defence, he must be a participant in the trial by evincing intelligent active interest by putting questions to witnesses in order to ascertain the truth also has stated the limits of that power. It is observed: "With such wide powers the Court must actively participate in the trial to elicit the truth and to protect the weak and the innocent. It must, of course, not assume the role of a prosecutor in putting questions. The functions of the counsel particularly those of the Public Prosecutor, are not to be usurped by the Judge, by descending into the arena, as it were. Any questions put by the Judge must be so as not to frighten, coerce, confuse or intimidate the witnesses." 6. The affidavit to the petition enumerates the question by the court and the answers to the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that, defence witnesses particularly Dws.1 and 2 were examined to prove that the prosecution case of recovery of the articles from the person of the accused is not true and that if as a matter of fact such recovery was made, it was inescapable that the Circle Inspector did not notice the waist belt worn by the accused at the time of arrest. He contended that, at the time of arrest the accused was wearing a belt which was seized by the jail authorities at the time when his person was examined. According to the learned counsel, the nature and character of the questions put by the court were such that the same are capable of creating an apprehension in the mind of the accused against fair trial. At any rate, according to the learned counsel the character of the court questions would show that the same are aimed to strengthen the prosecution case and to destroy the testimony of the defence witnesses. These questions have the mantle of the prosecutor. 7. In the decision in Gurcharan Dass v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1418, it is observed: "A case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. A petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged. It is one of the principles of the administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged. It is one of the principles of the administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. However, a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice." It is true that the apprehension must not only be entertained, but must appear to the court to be reasonable. 8. As noted, the case of the petitioner is that the questions by the court, particularly those questions to DWs.1 and 2 are capable of creating an apprehension that justice will not be done. Of course, the principles which govern the right of the court to put questions has already been adverted to. In this regard the trend, tenor and nature of the court question generally are the deciding factors. I have gone through the court questions and answers extracted in the affidavit to the amended petition. As is observed in Gurcharan Dass’s case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1418, one of the principles of administration of justice is that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. In the context of the facts and circumstances to which advertence has already been made, it is necessary that, this case is transferred to another court for trial and disposal. Therefore, Sessions Case No.24 of 1992 pending before the Third Additional District Court, Ernakulam is transferred to the Court of the Prin-cipal Sessions Judge, Ernakulam for trial and disposal. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of as indicated above.