JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties on the petition for transfer of Cr.Case No. 93/91 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Karauli to any other court out side the Karauli district. 2. The petitioner is facing trial for offence under sections 323, 324. 341, 504 and 427 IPC in respect of incident alleged to have taken place on 5.4.91, the report of which was lodged by a person who is a practicing Advocate at Karauli. 3. The transfer of case is sought on the ground that none of the Advocates is prepared to appear on behalf of the petitioner for the reason that complainant Nagendra Vyas is a practicing Advocate at Karauli. 4. It may be mentioned that earlier also a transfer application bearing No. 4/97 was moved before this court on the same ground, which was dismissed by this court vide its order dated 19.1.1998. It may also be noted that in the previous transfer application, the petitioner has filed an affidavit of one Ganpat Singh Naruka, an Advocate of Alwar, a perusal of which shows that at the time of presenting his Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner, Shri Nagendra Vyas, Advocate practicing at Karauli and his colleagues abused and misbehaved with him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has made all sincere efforts to engage an advocate to appear and defend him in the case pending against him in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, but none is prepared to appear on his behalf as the complainant in the case is a practicing Advocate at Karauli and, therefore, he prayed that this court while exercising powers under section 407 Cr.P.C. may direct for transfer of case from Karauli to some other district. 6. It appears from the record of the case that two Advocates, namely Ramveer Singh and Bhagwan Singh, who presented their Vakalatnamas on behalf of the petitioner have deposed in their affidavits filed with the transfer application, that they were threatened by the complainant and his colleagues not to represent the petitioner. A perusal of order sheet dated 29.7.99 shows that there was no advocate on behalf of the petitioner, still the trial court recorded the statements of two witnesses. 7. A perusal of order sheet dated 29.7.99 shows that there was no advocate on behalf of the petitioner, still the trial court recorded the statements of two witnesses. 7. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, I consider it to be a fit case where this court should exercise its discretion under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the petitioner who is facing trial in a criminal case would be deprived of his valuable right of fair and impartial trial. Keeping in view the fact that no Advocate is prepared to appear and defend the petitioner in the courts at Karauli itself, I feel that ends of justice would be met if the criminal case pending against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Karauli is transferred to some other subordinate court within the same district, as required by Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 407 Cr.P.C. 8. Consequently, this transfer application is allowed. The Criminal Case No. 93/91 State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Singh pending in the court of Civil Judge (JD) & judicial Magistrate, Karauli is transferred to the court of Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate Hindaun, district Karauli. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli for compliance.Transfer application allowed. *******