JUDGMENT 1. - This Transfer Petition under Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code has been moved by the petitioner in respect of Sessions Case No. 60/96 - Sohan Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan , presently, pending trial in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases)-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, after a similar transfer petition purporting to have been filed under Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur was dismissed vide order dated 17-6-1996. 2. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present Jodhpur with immediate effect. As a petition of the petitioner is as follows : 3. The accused-petitioner along with five other co-accused persons, was challaned by the police of Police Station of Luni, after completion of investigation of F.I.R. No. 59/88 under Sections 395 and 384, Indian Penal Code registered on the report lodged by Gulam Mohd. in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jodhpur District. The learned Magistrate in turn, committed the case to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The learned Sessions Judge, in exercise of his power vested under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, made over this case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur whereat the same was registered on 13-6-1989 itself. This case remained pending in the same court till the same was ordered to be withdrawn from the same and further transferred to the court of Special Judge (trial of cases under the Essential Commodities Act), which was also vested with the power of Sessions Judge to be exercised within the territory of Jodhpur District by the Hon'ble High Court in exercise of its power under Section 9(3) and (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide its order dated 28.1.1988. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses beginning from 22 -2-1995 to 11-7-1995 and, thereafter, no witness has been examined. 5. Meanwhile, the Government of Rajasthan (Transport Department) vide its notification No. F. 3(1) Transport/91 dated 20-3-1995, vested the power of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in exercise of its power under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the court of Special Judge (E.C. Cases), Jodhpur with immediate effect. 5. Meanwhile, the Government of Rajasthan (Transport Department) vide its notification No. F. 3(1) Transport/91 dated 20-3-1995, vested the power of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in exercise of its power under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the court of Special Judge (E.C. Cases), Jodhpur with immediate effect. As a result, since all the Criminal Cases including Sessions Cases, Criminal Appeals and Criminal Revisions which were pending trial, after the same were made over to the same by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, were required to be withdrawn and transferred to other court of concurrent jurisdiction and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge vide letter No. 159 dated 12-1-1996 listing all such cases, requested through the Registry, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur to withdraw all such cases pending in the court of the said Special Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur to be transferred to some other court. Consequently, the High Court vide its order No. Gen./T.R.C./3/96 dated 2-8-1996 ordered all the Sessions Cases including the case in hand, along with Criminal Appeals, Criminal Misc. Cases and Criminal Revisions pending in the said court to be transferred again to the court of Sessions Judge so as to be further transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction for disposal according to law. The learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 18-3-1996 ordered transfer of this case as well to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Jodhpur also vested with the power of an Addl. Sessions Judge by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 9(3) and (6), Criminal Procedure Code, for trial according to law. 6. The case, accordingly, stood transferred to the last transferee court of Special Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, but without any further progress. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the moved Transfer Petition, as above, be- fore the learned Sessions Judge mainly on the ground that since trial of the accused persons had already commenced and as many as 7 witnesses from the prosecution side were already examined before its transfer and therefore, the transfer so ordered by the learned Sessions Judge was against the provisions of Section 409(2), Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, t was requested that the case be re-transferred to the court of Special Judge (E. C. Cases)-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur for completion of this trial according to law. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur for completion of this trial according to law. However, after hearing both the sides, this prayer of the petitioner did not find favour with the learned Sessions Judge, resulting in dismissal of the petition. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that since the case was transferred pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 2-8-1996, as above, purporting to have been passed in exercise of power vested under Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code and on this ground also the Court of Session could not reverse this order. 8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred this petition, as above.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also gone through the record and documents besides the orders as are referred to above. 9. As regards the factual position, the facts narrated above are undisputed. The police, after registration and investigation of the case, filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner and his co-accused persons, as above, in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, who in turn, immediately made over this case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, also being a competent court for trial of such cases on the same day. The same remained there, and the then the learned Presiding Officer of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 2, heard the arguments for framing of charges or otherwise advanced by both the sides and, vide his order dated 10-9-1992, passing a detailed order in respect thereof, further normally charged the accused-persons with commission of offences under Section 148 and 395/149, Indian Penal Code to which all of them pleaded not guilty, claiming a trial and so the trial commenced. However, since the said order was so subjected to a Criminal Revision before this Court and the same could lastly, be disposed of on 4-7-1994 thereby affirming the order of the learned trial Judge. While the prosecution witnesses were being summoned time and again, on one or other grounds, the accused-persons did not allow the learned trial Judge to proceed further with the trial and, lastly, while the case was pending for examination of the prosecution witnesses, vide order dated 20-2-1995, the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, withdrew this case from the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur and, instead, transferred the same to the court of Special Judge (E.C. Cases )-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur and, instead, transferred the same to the court of Special Judge (E.C. Cases )-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, whereat it was received and registered on 22-2-1995. In continuation of the trial commencing in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Jodhpur, the learned Presiding Officer of the said Special Court- cum-Addl. Sessions Judge examined as many as 7 witnesses. 10. It may also be noted with equal justification that the said court of Special Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge was presided over by Sarvashri Luxmi Dutt Sharma (from 25-3-1994 to 31-8-1995), Ganesh Dan Charan (from 6-8-1995 to 23-4-1996) and till the present Presiding Officer Shri Surya Narayan Ojha took over charge with effect from 1-5-1996. As a result, it is evident that the said court is being presided over by Shri Surya Narayan Ojha since 1-5-1996 whereas before his taking over as Presiding Officer of the said court, this case already stood transferred, as above, lastly pursuant to the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur vide order dated 18-3-1996. Therefore, for the disposal of present petition, it may be appreciated that Shri Surya Narayan Ojha, in the capacity of Addl. Sessions Judge did not conduct any proceedings. Even in part, in relation to this case since it already stood transferred from his court prior to this taking over as Presiding Officer of the court. Previously, Sarvashri Luxmi Dutt Sharma and Ganesh Dan Charan presided over this Court from 25-3-1994 to 23-4-1996 and during this period as many as 7 prosecution witnesses were examined from the side of the prosecution. Both these Presiding Officers since stood transferred elsewhere and they were the Presiding Officers who had heard and recorded evidence of the said 7 prosecution witnesses so far examined and, therefore, after their transfers they are not available to conduct and complete the trial of this case in which they recorded part evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution listed as many as 14 witnesses whereas, so far, only 7 witnesses could be examined. 11. The prosecution listed as many as 14 witnesses whereas, so far, only 7 witnesses could be examined. 11. Keeping in view all these developments, it is to be appreciated that after coming into force of the new Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the old provision of Section 350 which corresponds to Section 326 of the New Code have been substituted in place thereof thereby doing away with the old provision of Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the same having been so repealed and replace by the new Code. Obviously, keeping in view the inevitable frequent changes in the office of Magistrate and Judge and in order to provide a speedy trial the Legislature has taken away well-established right of the accused to claim a develop trial and that of the court to so direct by express words of the amending statute. In view of consideration in that perspective, for the disposal of the present petition, there is absolutely no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial had already commenced in the said Special Court (E.C. Cases)-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur and as many as 7 witnesses having been examined, in case this case further stands transferred to the transferee court the accused-petitioner shall stand prejudiced as a result of which he would be deprived of a fair and just trial. Had all these witnesses of the prosecution been heard and examined by the present Presiding Officer, there could have been some substance in the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner but, in absence thereof, since all these witnesses were examined by the predecessor of the present Presiding Officer, of the court and besides. The accused persons, after a prolonged period, were charged with the commission of the of- fences as above, by the Presiding Officer of the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Jodhpur and he also stood transferred and, as a result, subsequently, the same case was transferred to the said Special Judge-cum-Addl. The accused persons, after a prolonged period, were charged with the commission of the of- fences as above, by the Presiding Officer of the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Jodhpur and he also stood transferred and, as a result, subsequently, the same case was transferred to the said Special Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge whereat 7 prosecution witnesses were examined and, lastly, since, the present incumbent took over charge of the Presiding Officer of the court and, meanwhile, the Government of Rajasthan also vested the Presiding Officer of the said Special Judge (E.C. Cases) with the powers of a M.A.C.T. as well under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as a result, since pendency of such cases is more and, therefore, the Presiding Officer of the Special Judge while at the same time functioning as Member, M.A.C.I., was facing a great number of cases so pending in his court, this actuated, being expedient in the interest of fairness and justice as well as being convenient to the parties besides being in the interest of justice, the learned Sessions Judge, requested the Hon'ble High Court to transfer all such Criminal Cases pending in the court of said Special Judge and, as a result, on the motion of the learned Sessions Judge. the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in exercise of power vested under Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code besides under Section 27 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, by implication, with drew all these cases and ordered to be transferred to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur for further transfer to the courts of competent jurisdiction for disposal according to law. 12. As a result, the only grievance agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner could not have been transferred, being a part-heard case of the Special Judge (E. C.Cases)-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, who had commenced the trial, contrary to provisions of sub-sections (2) of Section 409 Criminal Procedure Code He has placed reliance on the decision rendered in Kuppuswamy Gownder v. The State of Karnataka, 1982 Cri. L.J. 90 . 13. In the instant case, it may be appreciated that the sole object behind the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 409 Criminal Procedure Code was that as and when any trial of a case or the hearing of appeal has commenced before the Addl. L.J. 90 . 13. In the instant case, it may be appreciated that the sole object behind the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 409 Criminal Procedure Code was that as and when any trial of a case or the hearing of appeal has commenced before the Addl. Sessions Judge to whom the case was either made over under Section 194 or the same stood transferred to his court under the other relevant provisions of the Code, the same ought not to be withdrawn and transferred after commencement of trial or hearing as the case be only because the presiding officer in case of a Sessions Case, it is the case in hand, once the Presiding Officer of the trial Court has commenced the trial and thereby heard and examined the witnesses even in part he has the opportunity of appreciating and noting the demeanour of the witnesses and also in appreciation of the facts and evidence of the case being tried by him and as a result, in its wisdom, the legislature has provided that unless it is warranted by other provisions of law ordinarily no Sessions Case in which the trial has once commenced before the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, the case ought not to be recalled and transferred again to any other court. In the case in hand as detailed above, the Presiding Officer of the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Cases)-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge had no opportunity to attend or even conduct part proceedings of the case since the same already stood transferred to the present court before lie took over as presiding officer of the court. As a result, there is absolutely no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the trial had commenced before the previous court and the same be transferred to the very court further for completion of the trial. The present presiding officer of the court from whose court this case was so, lastly, transferred is as fresh and new case to the transferee court as is the present Presiding Officer of the transferee court whereat this case is pending trial, there cannot be any judicial rational behind re-transfer of this case to the court of Special Judge (E.C. Cases)-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. Sessions Judge as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. Besides, as regards the objection regarding absence of any notice to the petitioner before transfer of his case, in the aforesaid circumstances even if it is assumed that though it is not free from doubt as to whether the transfer order of the High Court which could be made in exercise of powers vested under Article 227 of the Constitution as well as under Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code besides Section 27 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance as well, is an administrative, quasi judicial or a pure judicial but, even if it is assumed that before such cases, after their trial or hearing have commenced are to be transferred on the principle of natural justice a prior notice of the proposed transfer to show cause their against if any is required to be served on the affected parties or not, in the present case, as the facts and developments narrated above, leave no doubt that the order implicitly being challenged did not result in any prejudice or slightest as injustice to the petitioner and he has not been able to point out any prejudice resulting on account of transfer of this case to the present court. As is evident, the court of Special Judge (E. C.Cases)-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge is presently loaded with case-work after having been vested powers of member of M.A.C.T. as well and therefore, with a view to expedite trial of the present petitioner as well as his co-accused persons facing trial since long, in all probabilities shall be expedited by the transferee court whereat the case is pending trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any circumstance which could have been brought before the High Court in case the petitioner was served with a prior notice of transfer which could have deterred or effected the decision of the High Court thereby restraining it him from transferring this case to other courts. Therefore, in absence of any circumstance resulting in any prejudice there occasionally a failure of justice, even if it is assumed that a notice by way of legal requirements as above was essential at present looking to the aforesaid development since the Presiding Officer of the court of Special Judge (E.C. Cases) and Addl. Therefore, in absence of any circumstance resulting in any prejudice there occasionally a failure of justice, even if it is assumed that a notice by way of legal requirements as above was essential at present looking to the aforesaid development since the Presiding Officer of the court of Special Judge (E.C. Cases) and Addl. Sessions Judge is not the same Presiding Officer who had partly conducted the trial of the present case pending against the petitioner and therefore, there cannot be any justification for re-transfer of the case as prayed for by the petitioners. 15. Hon'ble Mr. B.J. Shethnaji in Ajai Textiles v. ACJM No. 1, Jodhpur, 1997 (1) W.L.C. (Raj.) 283 while also considering the cases reported in Deva and Anr. v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and Ors., R.L.R. 1988 (1) Raj. 539 and Kartan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (3) S.C.C. 569 , in similar circumstances, up held the order of the Rajasthan High Court purporting to have been passed under Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code as well holding that question of issuing notice for hearing the parties may not arise if the order is passed by the High Court suo- motu, even on the motion of Sessions Judge, as is the case in hand as well. 16. As a result of above discussion, viewed from either factual position or from that of legal as well there is no merit in this petition and, as a result, the same is liable to be dismissed. 17. Therefore, this petition is hereby dismissed and the stay order granted in respect thereof also stands vacated. Since the case in hand is pending trial since 13-6-89 and therefore, it is expected from the learned Presiding Officer of the last transferee court that he shall accord top priority to the early disposal of the case preferably within a period of six months from the date of this order. 18. The Transfer Petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******