P. R. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THIS application u/s. 407 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS are the accused persons in I. C. C. No. 87 of 1997 pending in the Court of J. M. F. C. (R), Cuttack and the alleged offences are u/ss. 341, 294, 506/34, I. P. C. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners states that as it reveals from the complaint petition, the complainant, the accused persons and three out of four named witnesses belong to the same place residing in the district of Keonjhar whereas only the witness No. 4 is a resident of Choudwar. He further states that only with a view to harrass the accused persons a false case has been instituted at Cuttack and the petitioners being poor persons it will be a costly affair for them to face the trial at Cuttack. They thus, pray for transfer of the case of any magisterial Court in Keonjhar Sessions division. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the complainant-opp. party vehemently opposes to that prayer on the ground that the named witness No. 4 and some other witnesses whom he may examine also belong to Cuttack and if the case is transferred petitioners shall be put to expenditure in producing such witnesses or else he will have to give up examination of such witnesses and, that will cause prejudice to his case. ( 6 ) IT is a matter to be considered by the trial Court as to whether witnesses not named in the complaint petition may be allowed to be examined at the time of trial. At this stage no opinion is expressed in that regard. ( 7 ) DURING the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners argues that with a view to harrass the petitioners and also to put them to expenditure the opposite party shall adopt dilatory tactics by applying for adjournments. Learned counsel for the complainant-opp. party states that at the trial stage he shall not apply for adjournment unless it will be absolutely necessary and direction may be issued to the trial Court prescribing a date line for disposal of the case so that the unfounded apprehension of the petitioners will be eradicated. Learned counsel for the complainant-opp. party states that at the trial stage he shall not apply for adjournment unless it will be absolutely necessary and direction may be issued to the trial Court prescribing a date line for disposal of the case so that the unfounded apprehension of the petitioners will be eradicated. He further argues that when the occurrence has occurred within the jurisdiction of J. M. F. C. (R), Cuttack, it should not be transferred only for the convenience of the petitioners when it is not convenient to the opposite party. ( 8 ) AS per the provision in Sec. 407 of the Code, High Court may exercise the power of transfer of a case (i) suo motu, or (ii) on the lower Court's report, or (iii) on the application of a party to the proceeding. In this case, this application u/s. 407 of the Code has been taken up for consideration on the application of the accused persons. Sub-section (1) of Sec. 407 of the Code further provides for five conditions one or more than one of that should be made out for consideration of the prayer. Those five conditions are- (i) a fair or impartial trial cannot be had; (ii) some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; (iii) an order under Sec. 407 is required by any provision of the Code; (iv) it will tend to general convenience of the parties or witnesses; and (v) it is expedient for the ends of justice. ( 9 ) PETITIONERS undoubtedly bank upon the last two grounds. But when as per the statement of the opposite party transfer of the case will equally put him to harassment and expenditure besides the possibility of depriving him to examine his witnesses from the locality of the place of the occurrence, prayer of the petitioner, even if sounds reasonable, cannot be accepted. In the case of Baljit Singh v. State of J and K, 1982 Cri LJ 1944 : AIR 1982 SC 1558 the Apex Court has said (at pages 1944-1945; of Cri LJ) :-"nor do we find that it would be a correct principle to apply to the transfer of Criminal cases that they should be heard at the place from where a large number of witnesses to be examined. 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. "apart from that, in view of the submissions made by the parties, while not allowing the prayer for transfer of the case, a few observations and directions as mentioned hereinafter will properly serve the ends of justice and also minimise the apprehended harassment and expenditure of the petitioners besides resulting in early disposal of the case. Such directions and observations are :- (i) Trial of the case be taken up and disposed of expeditiously by strictly adhering to the principles and provisions in Sec. 309 of the Code and in any case trial of the case be completed and judgment delivered within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the accused persons, if as yet they have not appeared. In the event they have already entered appearance then that period of six months be computed from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in the trial Court. (ii) If the complainant/opposite party shall apply for adjournments to produce his witnesses and if such prayer shall be favourably considered then long adjournments should not be allowed and besides that cost may be saddled with the complainant as a condition precedent and such cost which should have nexus with the harassment and expenditure of the accused persons, should be paid to the accused persons. (iii) If the accused/petitioners shall apply for adjournment or will adopt dilatory tactics, cost be saddled with them in the same manner and if necessary trial Court may resort to any other coercive measure which shall be deemed just and proper but that must be in accordance with law. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners states that observation be made that petitioners may be allowed to be represented u/s. 205 or 317 of the Code. No such observation is necessary or desirable inasmuch as on proper application, it is a matter to be considered and decided, in accordance with law by learned J. M. F. C. ( 11 ) THE Crl. Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly.