JUDGMENT 1. INVOKING Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners who have been facing their trial of a charge under Sections 147/148/149/325/326/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9 (b)(ii) of the Indian Explosives Act, before the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Rampurhat in connection with Sessions Case No. 8 of 2004, moved this Court for transfer of the case on the ground, the Court concerned is biased. 2. HEARD Mr. Partha Pratim Das, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Perused materials on record. It is vehemently contended before this Court that a particular witness P.W. 4, viz., Morsa Bibi @ Masuda Bibi was declared hostile by the prosecution but during her cross-examination by the prosecution the said witness made some statement against the accused. However, while her such statement was challenged by the defence and she was cross-examined as to the same, her reply completely negated her earlier statement made against the accused in her cross-examination by the prosecution. However, the Learned Trial Judge did not record her answer to the cross-examination by the defence and threatened to prosecute her for perjury. When the petitioners moved an application for transfer of the case before the Sessions Judge, Birbhum apprehending that they would not get a fair and impartial trial from the Court concerned, but the Learned Judge rejected such application on the ground that the trial has already commenced. Hence, this criminal revision. 3. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the Learned Advocate of the petitioners. Perused the materials on record. 4. IT appears from perusal of the materials on record that the P.W. 4, Morsa Bibi @ Masuda Bibi was examined in chief and was cross-examined on 21st July, 2009. On the self-same day, two other witnesses were fully examined, viz., P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. However, on that day no objection was raised in the Court below on behalf of the defence for not recording the answer allegedly given by the P.W. 4 during her cross-examination by the defence. Thereafter, only on 21st July, 2009, nearly after about one month, the defence for the first time came out with such a plea. The Learned Advocate of the petitioner was not able to satisfy this Court as to why such plea was not raised earlier. Thereafter, only on 21st July, 2009, nearly after about one month, the defence for the first time came out with such a plea. The Learned Advocate of the petitioner was not able to satisfy this Court as to why such plea was not raised earlier. In any event, I find that the said witness has been declared hostile, therefore what the witness stated during his cross-examination by the prosecution is of little consequence. Moreover, at this belated stage I am not inclined to accept the contention of the Learned Advocate of the petitioners, when such contention was not raised earlier. In my opinion, this is not a fit case where an order for transfer of a sessions trial be made, accordingly, this application stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Last but not the least, I am sure that moving of this application for transfer alleging biased against the Judge concerned would not prejudice the case of the accused and justice will be duly dispensed with. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgment to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.