Judgment :- The learned Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil has submitted a letter requesting for transfer of S.C. No. 286 of 2000 pending before him to some other District as the accused namely Sasi @ Gopalakrishnan is a practising advocate of the said court. The said letter is treated suo motu petition by this Court. 2. This court ordered notice to the accused, who is represented by Mr. Subramaniam. 3. On the directions issued by this Court, Mr. I. Subramaniam, learned Public Prosecutor and Senior Counsel appeared and submitted that under Section 407 of Crl.P.C. the High Court may act either on the report of the lower court or on the application by a party interested to transfer a case to some other court. The learned Public Prosecutor has also relied on a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1959 Madras 261 (Amed Moideen Khan and others Vs. Inspector of 'D' Division) wherein in Para-31 it was held thus:- "31. On merits, we see no reason to differ from the learned Sessions Judge in his conclusion that it was desirable to have the cases tried by some Magistrate other than the Fifth Presidency Magistrate in view of some unnecessary and unfortunate observations he made. Mr. Vaz, as well as the learned Advocate General agree that this Court has the power under Section 523 (3) Crl.P.C., suo motu to direct trial of any case by any Magistrate considered fit by it, even though neither party has applied for it, and without acting on a report of the lower court....." 3. Now, we look into the relevant provision of Section 407 (2) of Cr.P.C. which runs as follows:- "(2) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative: Provided that an application shall lie to the High Court for transfering a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him." 4. It is evident from Section 407 (2) of Cr.P.C. that High Court may act either on the report of the lower court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative may transfer a case to some other court. 5. It is evident from Section 407 (2) of Cr.P.C. that High Court may act either on the report of the lower court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative may transfer a case to some other court. 5. The Judgment relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor relating to Section 523 (3), which is equivalent to Section 407 (2) of the new code. In the said judghment a Division Bench of this Court held that High Court can suo motu direct trial of any case by any court even though neither party has applied for it and also without acting on a report of the lower court. 6. In this case, the trial court has given a valid reason that the accused was a practising advocate of the same court and prayed for transfer of the case to any other Court outside the District. The report of the lower court seeking for transfer is reasonable. Further, the counsel for the accused has also no objection for the same. Hence, it is ordered that S.C. No. 286 of 2000 pending on the file of the learned Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate is transfered to Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli. The Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to forward the bundles to the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli within seven days from the receipt of this order, on receipt of the same, the learned Principal District Judge is directed to dispose of the case within one month. The petition is ordered on the above terms.