( 1 ) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : this revisional application has been preferred under Sections 401 and 482 of the Cr. P. C. praying for setting aside the order dated 24/8/2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nadia in S. C. 20 (8) of 2006. ( 2 ) CASE of the petitioners is that Kalyani P. S. Case No. 34 of 2006 dated 07/2/2006 under Sections 341,326,307,302/34/120b of the Indian Penal code, Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 9b of I. E. Substance Act was started on the basis of a written complaint filed by one Gouranga Adhikary alleging therein that petitioners and others murdered his son Uttam Adhikary. It was further alleged therein by the defacto complainant that on earlier occasion, in the year 2004, the petitioners and others also murdered his another son anup Adhikary. The complainant claimed in the FIR that as Uttam refused to withdraw the said case against the petitioners, so he was murdered by them. ( 3 ) ON the basis of the said allegation, investigation was started and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted against 14 accused persons including the petitioners. ( 4 ) THE other case against the petitioners, on the allegation of murdering Anup Adhikary, the other son of the defacto complainant, is pending for trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II)at Kalyani. According to the petitioners, for ends of justice, trial of both the cases being S. C. 20 (8) of 2006 and S. C. 20 (12) of 2005 should be held in the same Court as the accused persons and the defacto complainant are same. But the learned Sessions Judge, by his impugned order, was pleased to transfer the said case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnanagar, nadia for disposal on the basis of a petition filed by the learned Public prosecutor, Nadia, wherein it was stated that fair trial was not possible at Kalyani, as the accused persons, with the help of their associates, were threatening the witnesses. Such prayer was opposed by the present petitioners. But the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reject such contention of the petitioners and allowed the prayer of the prosecution and thereby transferred the said case to the Court of learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnanagar. Such prayer was opposed by the present petitioners. But the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reject such contention of the petitioners and allowed the prayer of the prosecution and thereby transferred the said case to the Court of learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnanagar. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the learned sessions Judges, this revisional application has been preferred by the petitioners alleging therein that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is improper and against the principle of natural justice. As such, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the said order of the learned Sessions Judge and for passing appropriate direction for transferring the said case record to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Ck Court-ll) Kalyani. ( 6 ) THIS revisional application has been opposed by the State. Learned public Prosecutor supported the order of the learned Court below and prayed for dismissal of the revisional application. ( 7 ) MR. Basu learned Advocate for the petitioners first of all argued that the petition, as filed by the learned Public Prosecutor was not at all entertainable since it was not supported by any affidavit. In this respect he has cited the decision reported in AIR 1936 Lahore 356 (Ujugar Singh v. Emperor ). That apart, Mr. Basu further submitted that while transferring a case on the ground of any apprehension of not getting fair trial, it is the duty of the Court to come to a conclusion that such apprehension was reasonable in nature. But so far as present case is concerned, Mr. Basu pointed out that all the accused persons/ petitioners are now in jail and as such, it is not possible for them to threat the witnesses, as alleged by the prosecution. ( 8 ) MR. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that now a days it is not difficult for the anti-socials to terrorise the witnesses even if they are confined in jail. According to Mr. Goswami there are prima facie materials available from the G. D. entry as well as from the report of the Director General of police that there is reasonable apprehension that prosecution will not be in a position to conduct the case properly at Kalyani as the witnesses would be terrorised by the associates of the present petitioners. As such, Mr. Goswami there are prima facie materials available from the G. D. entry as well as from the report of the Director General of police that there is reasonable apprehension that prosecution will not be in a position to conduct the case properly at Kalyani as the witnesses would be terrorised by the associates of the present petitioners. As such, Mr. Goswami prayed for rejection of the contention, as rais. ed by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. ( 9 ) BE that as it may, it appears that when the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order, at that time the record was very much within his file and it was not transferred all. So question of transferring the case record from one Court to another Court by the learned Sessions Judge does not arise at all. Under such circumstances, the decision as reported in AIR 1936 Lahore 356 (supra) is not applicable so far as the present case is concerned. Learned sessions Judge, as it appears from his order, took cognizance of the case after it was committed and thereafter in his administrative capacity he was to distribute/transfer the case to the file of other Additional Sessions Judges of the District. This is a routine function of a Sessions Judge and it is his discretion to decide as to which Court will be suitable for the purpose of trial of a particular session case within his Sessions Division. In doing so, learned Judge is to consider all the aspects including the pendency of the cases and the availability of congenial atmosphere for a fair trial. To my mind, the petition filed by the learned Public Prosecutor before the learned Sessions Judge, was redundant in nature and it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge acted on the basis of the said petition While transferring the said case record from his file to the file of another Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnanagar Court and as such question of affidavit to be filed on behalf of learned Public Prosecutor does not arise at all. ( 10 ) IT appears from the order of the learned Sessions Judge that he discussed the matter in detail and thereafter he was of the opinion that it would be fair and proper to transfer the case record for trial to the Court of learned additional Sessions Judge at Krishnanagar. ( 10 ) IT appears from the order of the learned Sessions Judge that he discussed the matter in detail and thereafter he was of the opinion that it would be fair and proper to transfer the case record for trial to the Court of learned additional Sessions Judge at Krishnanagar. The petitioners have claimed that since another case is pending in the Kalyani Court against them, so this case should also be sent to the same Court for trial. This contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted as the cause of action of both the cases are not similar. It may be pointed out that the earlier case was started in the year 2004 against the petitioners for the alleged murder of the son of the defacto complainant of this case and the preset case was also filed against the petitioners for the alleged murder of another son of the defacto complainant in the year 2005. So both the cases are separate in nature as there is no direct connection in between the two incidents. It is not a case and counter case in between the parties and as such, question of trial by the same Court is not at all relevant. ( 11 ) I have perused the impugned order, as passed by the learned sessions Judge. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge considered the entire aspect and thereafter came to the conclusion that for the sake of justice the case in question should be sent to the Court of Additional Sessions judge, krishnanagar. The learned Sessions Judge was well within his jurisdiction to pass such an order. The impugned order, as passed by the learned Sessions judge, cannot, under any stretch of imagination, be said to be illegal as claimed by the petitioners. As such, since there is no illegality in the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, I think that this Revisional Court should not interfere with the said order of the learned Sessions Judge. The order, as passed by the learned Sessions judge in this respect, being legal, should be confirmed. ( 12 ) MR. Safiullah, learned Advocate, who also appeared on behalf of the petitioners argued that it is the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyani, who is only authorised to try the case in question in view of the West Bengal amendment of Section 9 of the Cr. ( 12 ) MR. Safiullah, learned Advocate, who also appeared on behalf of the petitioners argued that it is the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyani, who is only authorised to try the case in question in view of the West Bengal amendment of Section 9 of the Cr. P. C. According to him, by this amendment, all the Additional Sessions Judges who are posted in the sub-Divisions shall have equal power and jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge of the Sessions division. As such, according to him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, kalyani was the only competent Court to try the said sessions case and the learned Sessions Judge, Krishnanagar was not at all justified in not transferring the case record to the said Court. But, I regret, I cannot agree with this argument. It may be pointed out that there may be several Courts of Additional Sessions judges and their power and jurisdiction may be equal with the Sessions Judge, of the Sessions Division, but that does not mean that without the case being transferred to his file an Additional Sessions Judge of a sub-Division can proceed with the trial of a case. If this thing is permitted then in that event there will be total chaous in the administration of criminal justice system. By this amendment, under no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the power of Sessions judge has been taken away. On the contrary, the amendment speaks of the fact that Additional Sessions Judges of the sub-Divisions have also been given power of the Sessions Judge, as envisaged in the Code. That does not mean that the Sessions Judges' power to distribute the cases amongst the Additional sessions Judges have been taken away by this amendment. As such, this argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioners cannot be accepted. ( 13 ) IN the result, the revisional application is dismissed on contest. The impugned order dated 24/8/2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, nadia in S. C. 20 (8) of 2006 is confirmed. Learned Court below, before whom the case is now pending, is directed to proceed with the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible without allowing any unnecessary adjournment to either of the side. ( 14 ) SEND a copy of this judgment to the Court below at once for information and taking necessary action.