JUDGMENT : - Debiprasad Sengupta, J.: This is an application under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of a Sessions case being Sessions Trial No. 6(8)92 pending before the Court of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Barasat, North 24-Parganas, under section 342/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioners were put up on trial before the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge to meet a charge under section 342/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in short is that victim Srikanta Bala was married to one Iva Mondal (petitioner No.4 herein), daughter of one Ramen Mondal (petitioner No.1 herein). Thereafter Srikanta and his wife started residing in the house of Srikanta's father Balaram Bala (Defacto complainant in the case). After 15 days Srikanta left his house for unknown destination and the petitioner No.4 namely Iva Mondal left for her father's house. On 22.10.89 Srikanta came to the house of his elder sister Bijoli Bairagi and while he was taking his food in the said house, the present petitioners came there and took Srikanta to the house of one Babu Mondal (petitioner No.3). Thereafter all the petitioners started assaulting Srikanta causing bleeding injuries on his person and he became unconscious. The present petitioners thereafter took him to Habra Hospital, but on the way he expired. 3. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, North 24-Parganas, at Barasat and subsequently the same was transferred to the court of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, North 24-Parganas, Barasat for trial. 4. Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the learned Trial Judge is conducting the trial in an absolutely prejudicial manner which has created a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that they will be denied of a fair trial if the trial is conducted by the said learned Judge. According to the learned Advocate of the petitioners the prejudicial manner in which the learned Trial Judge is conducting the trial, will be evident from the following facts- (a) On 20.6.97 P.W. 5 was examined and was declared hostile by the prosecution and he was cross-examined by the prosecution. At this juncture the learned Trial Judge started threatening the said witness by saying that he will be taken into custody if he does not speak the truth. At this juncture the learned Trial Judge started threatening the said witness by saying that he will be taken into custody if he does not speak the truth. The manner in which the learned Judge threatened the said witness created an apprehension in the minds of the petitioners that the learned Judge is biased in favour of the prosecution. (b) The learned Trial Judge was so enraged that he detained the witness in the court room directing him not to go out of the court room until ordered by the court. (c) In spite of the well-settled principle of law that the accused persons need not stand in the dock unless it is required for a particular purpose like identification, the learned Judge directed that the petitioners be kept standing through out the trial. It was submitted by the petitioners' learned Advocate that the attitude of the learned Judge in making the petitioners stand through out the trial has also shaken the confidence of the petitioners in the learned Trial Judge and they are apprehensive that they will not get justice from that court. 5. On 20.6.97 an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Trial Judge, wherein it was stated in the facts and circumstances as stated above the petitioners reasonably apprehend that they would not get fair trial from that court. So a prayer was made for at least two months time to move the higher court for appropriate order. 6. The aforesaid application was taken up for hearing on the same date, i.e., on 20.6.97 and the learned Trial Judge was pleased to allow the prayer for adjournment and granted time till 21.7.97 to bring stay order from the higher court. 7. From the order dated 20.6.97 passed by the learned Trial Judge it becomes evident that the learned Trial Judge has himself said in his order "The actual fact is that during examination of the P.W. 5 initially, it is found that the witness was making false statement and so he was given a caution by this court about possible facing prosecution for giving false evidence if the same is found to be false one during recording of his statement". In my opinion this is sufficient to indicate that the learned Judge disbelieved this witness altogether and only because of this reason it must be taken into consideration in determining whether the instant trial should be allowed to be continued before the same trial court any longer. 8. The learned Trial Judge has also stated in his order dated 20.6.97 that the witness was making different gestures in the witness box by constant movement to disregard to quaries made by the learned P.P. in charge and sometimes by the court and the learned Judge felt that the gestures of the witness were made to demean the prestige of the court. But it is surprising to note that the learned Trial Judge, although he is empowered under section 280 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to record his remarks regarding demeanour of a witness, failed to record any such remark regarding demeanour of the witness while recording his evidence. Section 280 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows : Section 280. When a presiding Judge or Magistrate has recorded the evidence of a witness he shall also record such remarks (if any) as he thinks material respecting the demeanour of such witness whilst under examination. 9. I have carefully gone through the certified copy of deposition of P.W. 5 and I found that nothing has been recorded by the learned Trial Judge regarding any demeanour of such witness. Had there been any gesture by the witness in the witness box to demean the prestige of the court, the learned Trial Judge could have recorded his remarks regarding such demeanour while recording his evidence. 10. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners cited a judgment reported in 26 Cr.L.J. 852. In the said case the learned Magistrate recorded some remarks under section 363 Cr.P.C. (Sec. 280 Cr.P.C. in the new Code), which was as follows: "The witness falters and from his demeanour it appears that he has not told the truth." It was held by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Court that the Magistrate having signified that he altogether disbelieved the witness it was desirable that the case should be transferred to some other Magistrate. In the present case also I find that the learned Trial Judge in his order dated 20.6.97 has stated that during examination of P.W. 5 he found that the witness was making false statements. In the present case also I find that the learned Trial Judge in his order dated 20.6.97 has stated that during examination of P.W. 5 he found that the witness was making false statements. In my opinion this remark is sufficient to indicate that the learned Trial Judge disbelieved the witness, namely P.W. 5. In my opinion the judgment referred to above by the learned Advocate of the petitioners is fully applicable in the present case. 11. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that the instant case being a Sessions trial cannot be transferred to any other Sessions Court in view of the fact that the trial of the case has already commenced. In support of his contention he relies on a decision reported in 1997 Cr.L.J. 1401. In the said case prosecution adduced evidence in support of its case. The accused persons were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they entered into their defence and three defence witnesses were examined. At that stage the defacto complainant made an application under section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Sessions Judge for transfer of the case from the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to some other court. The said application under section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that he had no power to transfer the case under 'section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the commencement of the trial. It was held in the said judgment that in view of the provision of section 409(2) the Sessions Judge has got no power to transfer a trial to the court of any other Additional Sessions Judge after the trial has started. But before that stage of the trial the Sessions Judge has got the power to withdraw the sessions case. I have gone through the judgment referred to above by the learned Advocate of the Opposite Party and I am of the opinion that the said judgment has got no manner of application in the present case. Under section 407(1) High Court's power to transfer any case is wide enough and it has got jurisdiction to transfer a case at any stage of the proceeding even after the commencement of the trial. 12. Under section 407(1) High Court's power to transfer any case is wide enough and it has got jurisdiction to transfer a case at any stage of the proceeding even after the commencement of the trial. 12. In the circumstances discussed above I am of the opinion that this is a fit case which warrants interference by this court. Since it appears from the order dated 20.6.97 that the learned Trial Judge has already exposed his mind and signified that he disbelieved the witness (P.W. 5) it is desirable that the trial should not be allowed to continue in that particular court. In the result the application under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. The case being Sessions Trial No. 6(8)92 be transferred from the court of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Barasat to the court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Barasat, North 24-Parganas. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Barasat is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the records. The order may be communicated to the court below immediately. Application allowed. Direction given.