Order.- This is a petition filed under section 526, Criminal Procedure Code by all the 8 accused in P.R.C. No. 1 of 1966 on the file of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Machilipatnam. They are all charged under section 302, Indian Penal Code, for the murder of Avula Krishna in August, 1965, at Machilipatnam, and some of them for other individual offences under sections 323, and 324, Indian Penal Code The petitioners applied for a transfer of the case from the file of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate on two prior occasions. The Sessions Judge dismissed one such application on 7th May, 1966, and the Additional Sessions Judge the other application on 28th September, 1966. It is not necessary to set out in any detail all the vicissitudes that this case has undergone. Suffice it to say that even though it is more than one-and-a-half years since the offence was committed, the preliminary enquiry has not yet been allowed to commence. For a disposal of this application it is enough to state the events subsequent to the second transfer application on 28th September, 1966. P.W. 1, Merugu Jhon Meeraiah, a senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies Machilipatnam and P.W. 2 are said to be eye-witnesses in this case. They art charged With the murder of one T. Sanjeeva Rao, in Machilipatnam town on 28th September, 1966, and a preliminary charge-sheet for offences under sect on 302 Indian Penal Code, etc., was filed by the Police on 13th October, 1966, and the same’ is pending as P.R.C. No. 9 of 1966. P.Ws. 1 and 2 who Were in police custody on that account were produced before the Magistrate on 13 October, 1966, and though the petitioners were ready to conduct their cross-examination, the case was adjourned to 24th October, 1966 on the ground that the A.P.P. was absent. On 24th October, 1966 the A.P.P. was present and the Counsel for the petitioners also was ready to cross-examine P.Ws. 1 and 2, who were produced. According to the petitioners the Counsel engaged to assist the prosecution and the brother of the Public Prosecutor, Krishna were taking steps for the release of P.W. 1 on bail, and P.W. 1 declined to be examined till he was so released. 1 and 2, who were produced. According to the petitioners the Counsel engaged to assist the prosecution and the brother of the Public Prosecutor, Krishna were taking steps for the release of P.W. 1 on bail, and P.W. 1 declined to be examined till he was so released. The Counsel engaged to assist the prosecution raised an objection that oath could not be administered to P.W. 1 as he Was an accused in a murder case though that objection was overruled by the Magistrate. After it was overruled, the accused (petitioners) expressed their readiness to cross-examine P.W. 1 if he was examined. But P.W. 1 complained of sickness, which the petitioners contended Was feigned. The Magistrate sent P.W. 1 to the District Medical Officer, Krishna for a report as to the state of his health and adjourned the case to 2nd November, 1966. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were not produced before the Court on 2nd November, 1966 from the Sub-jail though the Counsel for the accused was ready, to cross-examine them. The Magistrate then adjourned the case to 14th November, 1966. On 1st November, 1966, P.W. 1 in fact got a bail application filed on his behalf by the Counsel assisting the prosecution, and by the brother of the Public Prosecutor before the Sessions Judge, Krishna. It was posted for notice to the Public Prosecutor on 3rd November, 1966, and heard on 5th November, 1966. It was argued by the brother of the Public Prosecutor for P.W. 1, and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Even though there are five eye-witnesses, P.W. 1 (the 2nd accused) was ordered to be released on bail on 5th November, 1966. On 14th November, 1966, P.W. 1 who was released on bail, appeared in Court and A.P.P. Grade I, submitted that P.W. 1 Was ready to give evidence, and that P.W. 2 Was also brought from the Sub-jail for his examination as a witness. At the request of the petitioners’ Counsel, the case was adjourned from 14th November 1966 to 16th November, 1966. On that day, the petitioner’s Counsel filed an application, Cr. At the request of the petitioners’ Counsel, the case was adjourned from 14th November 1966 to 16th November, 1966. On that day, the petitioner’s Counsel filed an application, Cr. M.P. No. 615 of 1966, for being supplied with the Statements under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, of two Police Constables and the S.H.O of Chilakalapudi, and also the dying declaration of the deceased (Avula Krishna) said to have been recorded by P.W. 18 on the ground that these documents falsified the prosecution case. The A.P.P. having argued that those documents Were not in existence, the learned Magistrates dismissed that petition. Thereupon, the petitioners’ Counsel filed Cr. M.P. N0.616 of 1966, praying for an adjournment on the ground that he intended to prefer revision against that order, but that was opposed by the A.P.P. and was dismissed, and the Magistrate was about to examine P.W. 1. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a petition under section 526 (8), Criminal Procedure Code, intimating that they would file a transfer petition in the High Court, and prayed for a month’s time whereupon it was adjourned to 1st December, 1966. The present petition Cr.M.P. No. 2013 of 1966 was accordingly filed in this Court and was admitted, and stay of further proceedings granted. In response to the order of this Court, the Magistrate has submitted his remarks on this application. Sri Dasaratharamaiah, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that on the facts narrated above his clients apprehend that a fair and impartial enquiry cannot be had before the Magistrate and that the case may be transferred. This application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. He also contends that the application is liable to be dismissed under section 526 (1-A), Criminal Procedure Code, as an application for transfer was not made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him. It is Well-settled that parties arraigned before Courts should have confidence in their impartiality, and to achieve this one of the duties of the High Court is to create and maintain such confidence by giving every party an assuarance, that as far as practicable, he would not be forced to have his case tried by a Magistrate, who he has reasonable grounds to suspect, is prejudiced against him. The test whether a case should be transferred or not is, therefore, whether there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had before the Magistrate trying the case. That must be decided in each case having regard to the facts and surrounding circumstances, viewing the matter from the stand-point of the accused. At the same time, it is equally well-settled that an accused is not entitled to have his case transferred merely because he chooses to place a sinister interpretation on the innocent conduct of the Magistrate. The facts placed before me may now be examined in the light of these principles. It is, no doubt true that P.W. 1 stated that he was sick on 24th October, 1966. The report of the Doctor is nothing more than that he Was admitted in the Hospital for observation, as he was having high blood-pressure. It is also not disputed that on 14th November, 1966, P.W. 1 not only attended the Court, but submitted that he was ready to be examined. This is no doubt throws some suspicion about the statement of P.W. 1 on 24th October, 1966 that his health did not permit himself to the examined, as it is difficult to believe that he got rid of his high blood-pressure within 20 days. But the Magistrate, however, could not help granting an adjournment on 24th October, 1966, when P.W. 1 was saying that he was sick. On 2nd November, 1966, the Magistrate admits that P.W. 1 was not produced. But the explanation was that there was no police constable to escort P.W. 1 from the Sub-jail to the Court, as all the local police Were engaged in Bandobast duty in connection with ‘Bandh’. The Magistrate thereupon adjourned the case from 2nd to 14th November, 1966. It is not known what the state of his diary was between 2nd and 14th November, 1966. The petitioners, however, contend that P.W. 1 was thus enabled to attend the Court on 14th November, 1966 only after obtaining the orders of his release on bail on the 5th, and that became possible because the Counsel who moved for bail happened to be the brother of the Public Prosecutor. About this I shall advert a little later. The petitioners, however, contend that P.W. 1 was thus enabled to attend the Court on 14th November, 1966 only after obtaining the orders of his release on bail on the 5th, and that became possible because the Counsel who moved for bail happened to be the brother of the Public Prosecutor. About this I shall advert a little later. As regards the documents applied for by the accused, when the Magistrate Was informed by the Public Prosecutor that they were not in existence he was right in dismissing Cr. M. P. No. 615 of 1966 and this does not show any prejudice on thepart of the Magistrate. On the above facts, the utmost that could be said by the petitioners was that the Magistrate mere readily granted adjournments to the prosecution than to the accused. It is on record that the accused also applied for and obtained adjournments on grounds not wholly reasonable or justifiable. Granting of more adjournments to the complainant even if true, can hardly be a ground justifying the creation of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused that the Magistrate is partial to the prosecution. By reason of frequent adjournments whether it be at the instance of prosecution or by the accused, and also by reason of the accused approaching the higher Courts for revision and for transfer, the inquiry in the case has not yet been commenced, though the offence was committed more than one-and-a-half years ago. This device of protracting proceedings in the committal Courts or before Magistrates in the hope of some possible advantage or benefit cannot but be strongly condemned. I have no doubt that the grounds placed before me do not Warrant a transfer of the case from the file of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate. Admittedly, the accused had not approached the Session Judge for transfer of the case on the basis of the order in Cr.M.P. No. 615 of 1966, but straightaway filed this petition in this Court. I am of opinion that the petition must fail on this ground as well under section 526 (1-A), Criminal Procedure Code. Admittedly, the accused had not approached the Session Judge for transfer of the case on the basis of the order in Cr.M.P. No. 615 of 1966, but straightaway filed this petition in this Court. I am of opinion that the petition must fail on this ground as well under section 526 (1-A), Criminal Procedure Code. Before I part with the case, I must observe that the fact that the brother of the Public Prosecutor moved and obtained an order for release of P.W. 1 on bail during the pendency of the preliminary enquiry, from the Sessions Court, coupled With the fact that the enquiry before the Magistrate was adjourned till then, gave rise to an impression in the mind of the accused, albeit unjustified that P.W. 1 a Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies, Machilipatnam was being favoured in Courts, an impression which could have been avoided. The well-known dictum of Lord Hewart, C.J., in Rex v. Sussey Justices1, bears repetition in this context: “It is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done-Nothing is to be done Which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.” It cannot be disputed that the Law Officers of the State are in a Way persons associated in the task of administering justice, and the above dictum governs them equally. The anxiety of a person taken into police custody for a capital offence, to get released on bail is too well-known and an order on a bail application, more than any other judicial order must not only be but also be seen to be passed in accordance with law and only in the interests of justice. That result seems to suffer when a Public Prosecutor is pitted against his own brother, or other close relative or his junior who invariably appears for him. Such situations may well be avoided by the Public Prosecutor if necessary, by securing the appearance of another Public prosecutor or Advocate to whom no interestedness can be attributed. These are ethical restrictions of the profession which the Courts and Law Officers have to voluntarily impose upon themselves, even in the absence of any express rules in that regard to save the fair name and impartiality of the fountain of justice being sullied. These are ethical restrictions of the profession which the Courts and Law Officers have to voluntarily impose upon themselves, even in the absence of any express rules in that regard to save the fair name and impartiality of the fountain of justice being sullied. Separate proceedings will issue to examine the correctness and validity of the bail order in P.R.C. No. 9 of 1966. In the result, I find the application for transfer is devoid of merits, and it is accordingly dismissed. A.B.K. ----- Application dismissed.