JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.The petitioner - accused is facing trail in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh along with other co - accused persons for offences under Sections 363, 366, 342 and 376, I.P.C. The trial of the case is going on. The petitioner filed an application for transfer of the case while raising objections that during the course of trial, the learned Sessions Judge has taken upon himself to conduct the trial of the case and when statement of witnesses were recorded the trial Judge himself conducted the examination - in - chief of the witnesses instead of the Public Prosecutor.A specific objection was made before the learned Sessions Judge when the proceedings of the trial were going on on 04.05.2010 by way of written application. In the application, it was specifically requested to learned Sessions Judge that Public Prosecutor has been appointed to conduct the trial and, if at all, learned Sessions Judge wished to ask certain questions to the witnesses same could be asked by way of court questions. The petitioner has placed on record the said application as Annex. - 1.Another application was filed by the petitioner on 07.06.2010 for seeking time to file transfer application for transfer of the case before this Court. The petitioner has placed on record the said application as Annex. - 1.Another application was filed by the petitioner on 07.06.2010 for seeking time to file transfer application for transfer of the case before this Court. The said application along with affidavit runs as follows : lsok esa U;k;ky;% ekuuh; l= U;k;k/kh'k egksn; fpRrkSM+x<+ ( jkt0 ) l= izdj.k dzekad 49@09 ljdkj }kjk iqfyl dksrokyh] fpRrkSM+x<+-------------vfHk;ksxh fo:) tkosn[kku vkfn----------------------------------------vfHk;qDrx.k izkFkZuk i= ckcr pkgus le; okLrs izLrqr djus LFkkukUrj.k vkosnu le{k eku] mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj ( jkt0 ) ekU;oj egksn;] fuosnu izkFkhZ fuEukuqlkj gS%& 1- ;g fd bl U;k;ky; esa izdj.k fnukad 2-5-09 dks mifLFkr gksdj izLrqr gqvk gSA rFkk Jheku~ }kjk cgSfl;r fof'k"V U;k;k/kh'k v0tk@v0t0tk0 ( v0fu0 ) vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 363] 366] 342 ,oa /kkjk 376 th0 Hkk0n0la0 ds vUrxZr vkjksi fufeZr fd;s x;sA 2- ;g fd bl izdj.k dh fo'ks"krk ;g gS fd bl izdj.k dh ?kVuk fnukad 6-3-2009 crk;k x;k gS bl izdj.k dk ewy mn~ns'; ;g Fkk fd fpRrkSM+ tSls 'kkar 'kgj esa fgUnw vkSj ewlyekuksa ds e/; v'kkafr Qsy tkos rFkk tkosn ds firk tks yksd lHkk dk pquko yM+uk pkgrs Fks] mUgsa fVfdV ugha feys vkSj ;fn fey Hkh tk, rks os thr ugha ldsA fdUrq bl izdj.k dh bl izdkj 'kkgjr QsykbZ xbZ fd mUgsa fVfdV ugha feysA 3- ;g fd vlarq"V rRo brus ls gh larq"V ugha gq, bl >wBs izdj.k dks jax nsus ds fy;s iqfyl dk Hkh nq:i;ksx fd;k x;k vkSj vfHk;ksfx;k dh izFke dh izFke lwpuk tks fd fnukad 6-3-09 dks jken;ky oekZ }kjk nh xbZ mlesa vijk/k /kkjk 376 Hkk0na0fo0 dk ,d 'kCn Hkh ugha Fkka bruk gh ugha dqekjh fueZyk us vius iqfyl dFku tks fd fnukad 6-3-09 dks vuqla/kkudrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk vafdr fd;s x;s gSa] mlesa cykRdkj ds laca/k esa ,d 'kCn Hkh ugha crk;k fdarq izHkko'kkyh lkeiznkf;d fopkjk/kkjk okys rRoksa ls lkaB xkaB dj ;|fi /kkjk 376 Hkk0na0fo0 dk izdj.k ugha Fkk vkSj vijk/k dzekad 153@09 /kkjk 363] 365 dh ihfM+rk dks 5 ctdj 15 feuV ij cjken fd;k x;k vkSj QnZ nLr;kch cukbZ xbZA vkSj ihfM+rk cykRdkj ds laca/k esa ,d 'kCn Hkh ugha cksyrh mlds ckotwn iqfyl }kjk izHkko'kkyh O;fDr vkfn yksxksa ds izHkko esa jkr dks 11-40 cts mldh lgefr ysdj vkSj cykRdkj laca/kh tkap djokbZ xbZA rFkk tks i= iqfyl }kjk fpfdRld egksn; dks fy[kk x;k og Hkh izFke lwpuk rFkk c;ku ihfM+rk ls gVdj gSA ftuesa cykRdkj dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA tks iqfyl dh cn;kfUr dk izrhd gSA 4- ;g fd bu lkjh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds ckotwn Hkh loZizFke cykRdkj ds laca/k esa ihfM+rk ds firk }kjk c;ku 16-3-09 dks vFkkZr 10 fnu i'pkr~ }kjk c;ku nsus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA vkSj bl izkFkZuk ds ifjizs{k esa mlh fnu ihfM+rk fueZyk dk brEck c;ku fy;k x;k vkSj mlesa [kksVk dke cykRdkj djuk crk;k x;kA fdUrq vuqla/kkudrkZ }kjk fpfdRld ds lkeus nh xbZ Lohd`fr ds laca/k esa ,d 'kCn Hkh ugha iwNk gSA 5- ;g fd izdj.k ds lapkyu esa le; & le; ij jktuhfrd ncko ds ek/;e ls yksd vfHk;kstd Hkh cnys x;s rFkk na0iz0la0 dh /kkjk 225 ds vuqlkj l= U;k;ky; ds le{k izdj.k dk lapkyu yksd vfHk;kstu }kjk fd;k tkosxkA fdUrq bl izdj.k esa izkjEHk ls gh eku0 U;k;ky; egksn; }kjk eq[; ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA vkSj tc fiNyh rkjh[k dks vFkkZr~ fnukad 4-5-10 ojh ebZ 10 ;g vkifRr mBkbZ xbZ fd c;ku esa ;g uksV ijh{k.k djus ij fn;k x;k gS vr% mls Vw dksVZ fy[kk tkosA nqHkkZX; ls bl ckr dks mfpr ugha le>dj izdj.k esa rkjh[k c<+k nh xbZ vkSj bl laca/k esa vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ,d izkFkZuk i= Hkh U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k vkSj ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k x;k fd yksd vfHk;kstd egksn; dsoy ewd n'kZd ds :i esa mifLFkr FksA 6- ;g fd mijksDr okyh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk lk{khx.k ij MkDVjksa ij rFkk iqfyl ij ncko gS vr% vfHk;qDrx.k dks vUns'kk gS fd os U;k; izkIr djus ls oafpr jgsaxsA vkSj bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izdj.k dk lapkyu fpRrkSM+ ftys ds ckgj djus ij gh dkuwuh U;k; gksxkA 7- ;g fd eku0 loksZPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ'kkuqlkj fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k ds le; vkSj fuosnu ds lkFk izFke lwpuk dh izfrfyfi Hksth tkuh pkfg,A tks bl izdj.k esa ugha Hksth tkdj izFke lwpuk ls gVdj fpfdRld egksn; dks fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k ds fy;s iqfyl }kjk funsZ'k fn;k x;k FkkA eku0 loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk 1994 ( 2 ) dzkbZEl i`"B 154 ykl uk;d es?kjkt flag& dkyw fd mRrjizns'k jkT; esa ;g funsZ'k fn;k gS fd izFke lwpuk le; ij fy[kh xbZ mlds fy, ,d psd ;g gS fd izFke lwpuk dh izfrfyfi MkW0 dks Hksth tk,A ftldh ikyuk bl izdj.k esa ugha dh tkdj blds foijhr tkap djokbZ xbZ gSA 8- vr% blls leLr ifjfLFkfr;ka rFkk vU; vkSj Hkh dkj.k gSa ftldh otg ls izkFkhZ izdj.k bl ftys ds fdlh U;k;ky; esa djkuk ugha pkgrk gS vkSj mls tks U;k; izkfIr dks tks vf/kdkj izkIr gS mlds fy, og eku0 mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj bl ckcr~ fuosnu dj mfpr vkns'k izkIr djuk pkgrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ dks pwafd bl le; vodk'k dky gS mfpr le; fn;s tkus dh d`ik djsaA rkfd izkFkhZ eku0 mPp U;k;ky; ls ;ksX; vkns'k izkIr dj ldsA LFkku&fpRrkSM+x<+ fnukad 7-6-2010 izkFkhZ ( tkosn vkRet 'ksj[kka ) fuoklh lkok Fkkuk 'kaHkqiqjk ftyk fpRrkSM+x<+ ( jkt0 )"In the above application, it is prayed that the petitioner did not get justice, therefore, for transferring this case outside the district the petitioner is going to file application before the Rajasthan High Court. Therefore, time may be granted because at present vacation is going on. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not levelling any allegation of mala fide against the District & Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh but, for the reason that learned Sessions judge has taken upon himself to conduct the examination - in - chief of the witnesses instead of Public Prosecutor, therefore, once the presiding officer started asking questions of examination-in-chief, then, he literally acts as Public Prosecutor and, in such circumstances, it can easily be assumed that fair trial of the case is not possible in that Court at all. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited my attention towards judgment reported in 1981 Cr. L.R. (SC) 246, Ram Chandra v. State of Haryana and submits that his application filed under Section 407, Cr.P.C. may be accepted and Sessions Case No. 49 of 2009, State v. Javed Khan & Another may be transferred to some other Court apart from the Court of Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, preferably to a Court outside Chittorgarh district. 3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner for transferring the case and perused the application Annex. - 1 and application Annex. - 3 which is said to be filed by the accused-petitioner before the Sessions Court. 4. Upon perusal of application Annex. - 1, in which, a prayer was made for taking facts on record, it will reveal that an objection was raised with regard to conducting examination - in - chief by the Sessions Judge. The learned Judge while passing order dated 04.05.2010 observed in the order that, today, he has recorded statement of P.W. - 16 Doctor Sanjay Pareek but, right from the first question, number of counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons, started intervention and created hurdle in the Court. The Presiding Officer observed that repeatedly he instructed the lawyers to maintain decorum but when instructions of the Sessions Judge were not followed, then, in the midst of the recording statement of P.W.-16 Doctor Sanjay Pareek, he stopped the proceedings and state of Doctor Sanjay Pareek was not recorded completely and, again, fixed the date for recording evidence. The Presiding Officer observed that repeatedly he instructed the lawyers to maintain decorum but when instructions of the Sessions Judge were not followed, then, in the midst of the recording statement of P.W.-16 Doctor Sanjay Pareek, he stopped the proceedings and state of Doctor Sanjay Pareek was not recorded completely and, again, fixed the date for recording evidence. Following order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 04.05.2010 : yksd vfHk;kstd mifLFkr gSA eqyfte mleku cjtekur e; vf/koDrk mifLFkr gS A vfHk;qDr tksonu varfje tekur ij mifLFkr gSA vU; eqyfteku tslh ls gkftj ugha gS] dsoy tslh okajV is'k fd, ftu ij tslh vof/k c<+k;h tkdj okfil ykSVk, x,A vfHk;qDr xqyke dh vksj ls odhy Jh lnkdr vyh ,oa 'kgtkn dh vksj ls odhy Jh iksdjjke fo'uksbZ us ikoj is'k fd,] 'kkfey i=koyh jgsA lk{kh MkW0 lat; ikfjd ds dFku ih0M0 16 ds :i esa izkjaHk fd, x,A ijUrq izFke iz'u ls gh vfHk;qDrx.k ds vf/koDrkx.k tks fd dkQh la[;k esa gSa] mifLFkr gksdj Vksdk&Vksdh dj iz'u iwNus esa ck/kk mRiUu dj jgs gSa] U;k;ky; esa izfrdwy ekgkSy iSnk dj jgs gSaA ckj&ckj le>kus ij Hkh ugha eku jgs gSa ,oa lk{; ds fy, vuqdwy ekgksy ugha cu ik jgk gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa lk{; ds dFku v/kwj jgs] mls :[lr fd;k x;k vU; xokgku MkW0 izfrHkk luk<~; ,oa MkW0 f'kodqekj xk: Hkh mifLFkr gSa] ftudks blh dkj.k :[lr fd;k x;kA blds mijkar odhy vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls ,d izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;k] tks 'kkfey i=koyh fd;k tkosA i=koyh esa xokgku dks fuEukuqlkj iqu% ryc fd;k tkos%& xokg la[;k 2] 4 ,oa 29 fnukad 7-6-2010 &&&&&&&&9] 11] 17 ,oa 18 fnukad 8-6-2010 &&&&&&&32 ,oa 37 fnukad 11-6-2010 &&&&&&&36] 39 ,oa 40 fnukad 19-6-2010 i=koyh okLrs lk{; vfHk;kstu fnukad 7-6-2010 dks is'k gksA ,lMh@& ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k fpRrkSM+x<+ ( jkt0 )" 5. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing on 07.06.2010, when the case was listed for recording statements of the prosecution witnesses, then, another application Annex. - 3 for seeking time to file application for transfer of the case was filed, in which, so many facts were stated including the objection raised on 04.05.2010. 6. Upon consideration of above facts and order dated 04.05.2010, it emerges that without levelling any allegation of mala fide the accused-petitioner is seeking transfer of the case upon irrelevant facts which is narrated in application Annex.-3. 6. Upon consideration of above facts and order dated 04.05.2010, it emerges that without levelling any allegation of mala fide the accused-petitioner is seeking transfer of the case upon irrelevant facts which is narrated in application Annex.-3. The only objection raised against the Presiding Officer is that the presiding officer is ignoring the Public Prosecutor and recorded examination - in - chief of the prosecution witness P.W. - 16 Doctor Sanjay Pareek which is not proper. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting attention towards judgment in Ram Chandra's case (supra) submitted that for the purpose of principle of fair trial the case is required to be transferred. But, the said judgment is not applicable upon the facts of the present case because in that case specific allegations were levelled against the Presiding Officer that he warned the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the facts of that case are entirely different and not applicable upon the present case. In my opinion, it appears that somehow the accused - petitioner is creating unnecessary atmosphere for transferring the case and while narrating certain irrelevant facts in the application dated 07.06.2010 he is seeking transfer of the case from the Court of Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh to another Court. When no allegation of mala fide is levelled against the Presiding Officer, so also, the Presiding Officer has observed in the order dated 04.05.2010 that counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons are unnecessarily creating hurdle in the Court and did not allow the trial Court to complete the statement of the prosecution witness P.W.-16 Doctor Sanjay Pareek, then, there is no ground made out for transferring the case from the Court of Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh to any other Court. 7. In the judicial system, it is true that the Court as well as counsel appearing before the Court are required to maintain decorum and co - operation is required for the same. When no allegation is levelled against the presiding officer and, more so, upon objection raised on 04.05.2010 with regard to recording examination - in chief of the prosecution witness P.W. - 16 by the learned Sessions Judge the Court stopped the proceedings and adjourned the matter. It is worthwhile to observe here that while deciding the bail application of co - accused on 25.05.2010 it was specifically directed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Appln. No.3615/2010 to complete the trial expeditiously. It is worthwhile to observe here that while deciding the bail application of co - accused on 25.05.2010 it was specifically directed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Appln. No.3615/2010 to complete the trial expeditiously. Therefore, on 07.06.2010 when statements of prosecution witnesses were to be recorded, application Annex. - 3 was filed by the petitioner seeking time to file application before this Court for transfer of the case from the Court of Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh to any other Court. 8. In my opinion, prima facie the conduct of the petitioner is to delay the trial because he is already on bail and other accused persons are behind the bars. In this view of the matter no case is made out for transferring the case from the Court of Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh to any other Court because if, in the present circumstances, order for transfer of the case will be made, then, certainly it will discourage the Judicial Officers for functioning smoothly for the purpose of adjudication. 9. In view of the above, the application filed under Section 407, Cr.P.C. for transferring the case from the Court of Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh to other Sessions Court is hereby rejected. However, it is expected of the Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh that he will conduct fair trial in accordance with rules and he will allow the Public Prosecutor to conduct the case for the purpose of examination - in - chief and allow counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons to cross-examine the witnesses.Transfer Application Rejected. *******