Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The complainant petitioner has filed this transfer petition seeking transfer of Sessions Case No. 17/2004, State vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors., from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Ajmer, Camp Beawar to any other competent Court in Ajmer Division. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to some developments which took place during trial of the case has vehemently contended that the manner in which learned trial Judge is conducting trial has given rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that justice would not be done to him. According to him, the trial Judge seems to have adopted lop sided approach in the course of trial. He stated that petitioner was examined on behalf of the prosecution. His cross-examination continued for five days and runs into 40 pages. In such endless cross-examination, the petitioner was subjected to irrelevant questions, but the learned trial Court instead interrupting reprimanded the petitioner to answer every irrelevant question of the defence Counsel. Learned Counsel further submitted that on 07.08.2004 the learned trial Judge summoned petitioner’s wife as a prosecution witness by issuing arrest warrant despite her serious ailment, inasmuch as she was suffering from acute gastroentritis and had been admitted in JLN Hospital, Ajmer and an application to this effect was also filed on 06.08.2004, supported by admission ticket of the said Hospital. However, the learned trial Judge did not pay any heed to the said application and summoned the petitioner’s wife Smt. Gori Devi through arrest warrant without even making a reference to the application filed by him on 06.08.2004. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner has prayed for transfer of the above case on the ground that trial is not being conducted in a fair, impartial and forthright manner. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Counsel for the complainant have opposed the transfer petition on the ground that the grounds on which transfer of the case is sought for are not sufficient. They argued that simply because petitioner was subjected to lengthy cross-examination or that his wife was summoned as a prosecution witness through arrest warrant, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner or that it has given rise to some apprehension that justice would not be done to him. They argued that simply because petitioner was subjected to lengthy cross-examination or that his wife was summoned as a prosecution witness through arrest warrant, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner or that it has given rise to some apprehension that justice would not be done to him. In this back-ground, it was argued that transfer petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. Before adverting to the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to make a reference of Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under:- “407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals,-(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court- .(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any criminal Court subordinate there to, or .(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is like to arise, or (c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice , it may order- (i) x x x (ii)x x x (iii) x x x .(2) TheHigh 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 no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring 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. 5. In the case at hand the complainant petitioner has directly moved transfer petition under Section 407, CrPC to the High Court seeking transfer of Sessions Case No. 17/2004 State vs. Syam Sunder & Ors., from the Court of Additionl Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Ajmer Camp Beawar to any other competent Court in Ajmer Division without approaching the Sessions Judge , Ajmer for transfer of the above said case under Section 408 CrPC. But in view of the bar contained in the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 407, CrPC no application shall lie to the High Court directly for transferring a case from one criminal Court to another criminal Court in the same Sessions Division unless the applicant first applies to the Sessions Judge for transfer of the case and the application is rejected by the Sessions Judge. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has canvassed before me that the statutory embargo contained in proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 407, CrPC, would not come into play as transfer is sought of a case from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge to any other competent Court and the Additional Sessions Judge does not happen to be a subordinate Court of the Sessions Judge of the said Division as is evident from a bare reading of Sections 10, 194 and 409(2), CrPC. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of Kerala High Court in State of Kerala vs. Reny George & Ors., 1981 CrLJ 1352 , wherein it has been held that the prohibition in the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 407 will have application openly in cases where the Sessions Judge has the power to transfer the case. Since an Additional Sessions Court and a Sessions Court are the Courts of equal jurisdiction, hence power under Section 408 CrPC cannot be invoked for the transfer of a Sessions Case from an Additional Sessions Court to a Sessions Court. 7. Learned Counsel further argued that the Judgment s referred by the Counsel for the accused non-petitioners suffer from the rule of sub silentio as the decisions do not reflect conscious consideration of Sections 10, 194 and 409(2) of CrPC and so cannot be deemed to be having a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141 of the Constitution. In support of the above contention, learned Counsel has relied upon Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar, 2000 (1) Supreme (Cr.) 554, wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court held that a decision not expressed, not accompanied by reasons and not proceeding on conscious consideration of an issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141 of the Constitution of India. This is the rule of sub silentio, in the technical sense when a particular point of law was not consciously determined. 8. Learned Counsel further brought to my notice the circumstances under which the case was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Beawar. According to him, case was transferred by the directions of the High Court and the directions were given under the powers flowing from Section 194, CrPC. Therefore, in the given situation, approaching the Sessions Judge for transfer of the case would be an exercise in sheer futility/formality. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the accused non-petitioner and Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the Sessions Judge has the power to transfer a case irrespective whether the Court in which it is pending is not subordinate to it. In support of their contention, learned Counsel have relied upon a decision of this Court in Bhabutmal vs. State of Rajasthan, 1970 RLW 242 and a decision of Delhi High Court in Suresh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, 1981 CrLJ 928 . 10. In the circumstances, therefore, the controversy centres round to this legal issue, whether the Sessions Judge has power to transfer a case under Section 408, CrPC from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, which is a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. 11. Section 6 CrPC creates five classes of criminal Courts. The first in the series is the Court of Sessions. The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 9(1), CrPC shall establish a Court of Session for every Sessions Division. Under Section 9(3) the High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Asstt. Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Section. Section 194, CrPC specifies the cases which the Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge shall try. This section provides that Addl. Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge shall try such cases as the Sessions Judge of the Division may by general or special order make over to him for trial or as the High Court may by special order direct him to try. 12. Section 409, CrPC deals with the power of the Sessions Judge as regards withdrawal of cases and appeals. This Section provides that Sessions Judge may withdraw any case or appeal from or recall any case or appeal which he has made over to any Assistant Sessions Judge or Chief Judicial Magistrate subordinate to him. 12. Section 409, CrPC deals with the power of the Sessions Judge as regards withdrawal of cases and appeals. This Section provides that Sessions Judge may withdraw any case or appeal from or recall any case or appeal which he has made over to any Assistant Sessions Judge or Chief Judicial Magistrate subordinate to him. The Section further provides that at any time before the trial of the case or the hearing of the appeal has commenced before the Addl. Sessions Judge, a Sessions Judge may recall any case or appeal, which he has made over to any Addl. Sessions Judge. 13. Section 10, CrPC provides that all Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge in whose Court they exercise jurisdiction. Section 408 CrPC authorities the Sessions Judge to transfer any particular case from one criminal Court to another criminal Court in his Sessions Division, if he is satisfied that order is expedient for the ends of justice. 14. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge is a criminal Courts Section 6, CrPC The provisions of Section 408, CrPC authorise a Sessions Judge to transfer a particular case from one criminal Court to another criminal Court in his Sessions Division. Section 408 does not restrict the powers of Sessions Judge by incorporating the words “from one criminal Court to another subordinate thereto.” The power under Section 408, CrPC is to be exercised in the interest of justice while under Section 409, CrPC such power may even be exercised under administration of business. Therefore, the powers contemplated under Section 408, CrPC to transfer a particular case by the Sessions Judge from one criminal Court to another in his Sessions Division is not circumscribed by any of the provisions quoted above. The power to transfer a case has not been given to the Court of Sessions but to the Sessions Judges. Therefore, the legislative intent appears to be that when a transfer of a criminal case from one criminal Court to another in the same Sessions Division is sought in the interest of justice, such an application must, in the first instance should be made before the Sessions Judge and not directly to the High Court. 15. For the reasons, therefore, the application filed by the complainant petitioner directly to this Court under Section 407, CrPC is not maintainable. 15. For the reasons, therefore, the application filed by the complainant petitioner directly to this Court under Section 407, CrPC is not maintainable. I am fortified in my view by the Judgment earlier rendered by this Court in Bhabutmal vs. State (Supra), which was followed in Suresh Kumar’s case (Supra). The Judgment s relied upon have considered all the provisions of law, referred to hereinabove. 16. In Para 4 of the petition, the complainant petitioner has referred Order No. Gen/11/43/01(s) 878 dated 27.05.2004 passed by the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court, thereby issuing direction to the Sessions Judge, Ajmer to transfer certain Sessions cases from the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Beawar to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Ajmer, camp Beawar. However, a copy of the above said order was not placed for perusal of this Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the above said order was passed in exercise of powers under Section 194 CrPC or was simply in the shape of administrative directions. In that view of the matter, in the event of any application for transfer of case being filed by the complainant petitioner in the Court of Sessions Judge, the Sessions Judge shall take into consideration the above said order and its effect. 17. In the result, this transfer petition being not maintainable stands dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner to apply before the learned Sessions Judge for transfer of case on the grounds set out in the application made before this Court. 18. In view of dismissal of transfer petition, the stay order passed by this Court also stands vacated.