JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. The instant application is filed by the Petitioner, Sri Khokan Debbarma, an accused in Agartala Women P.S case No. 24 of 2009 wherein the police ultimately filed charge sheet against the Petitioner and the Petitioner is facing trial in a sessions proceeding being ST 54(WT/A) 2010 under Sections 498A and 306 IPC pending before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3 either to quash the entire proceeding or withdraw the case from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3 and transfer the same in any other Sessions Court within West Tripura District on the ground that the Presiding Judge of the aforesaid Court is a relation of Mr. B. B. Das, the ex-Chairman of Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC) who is closely associated with Mr. B. K. Roy, a Commissioner to the Govt. of Tripura, against whom the Petitioner moved an application wherein some accusations are made against him relating to the death of the wife of the Petitioner as she was working under him, but unfortunately the police did not investigate the case on the line of accusations made by the Petitioner, rather the Petitioner was implicated for the death of his wife for which he is facing trial. Therefore, the Petitioner has an apprehension that he would not get justice from the Presiding Officer of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3. With the aforesaid apprehension of not getting justice from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3, the Petitioner made an application under Section 408 of Code of Criminal Procedure to the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, but the said petition was disposed of without allowing the prayer of the Petitioner for transfer of the aforesaid Sessions case on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge has no power to transfer a sessions case from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge under Section 408 of Code of Criminal Procedure to whom the case has been entrusted. 2. As per Section 408 of Code of Criminal Procedure, once the Sessions Judge transferred a sessions case from his file to any of the Additional Sessions Judge, the same cannot be withdrawn. 2. As per Section 408 of Code of Criminal Procedure, once the Sessions Judge transferred a sessions case from his file to any of the Additional Sessions Judge, the same cannot be withdrawn. The Sessions Judge also in his order stated that power of withdrawal of cases and appeals by Sessions Judge is prescribed in Section 409 of Code of Criminal Procedure and in exercise of the same, the Sessions Judge may recall any case from the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge which was made over by him only before trial of the case has commenced. 3. In the instant case, the charge has been framed against the Petitioner on 1.9.2010 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC, the trial has already been started and the matter is fixed for recording evidence. Therefore, the said power under Section 409 of Code of Criminal Procedure also could not be exercised by the Sessions Judge. Hence, the present criminal petition is for quashing the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3 as well as for transfer of the said sessions case on withdrawal from the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3 to any other Court. 4. Mr. D.C. Kabir, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has made allegations before the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala against the Presiding Judge of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3 stating, inter alia, that the Petitioner from different sources gradually came to know that Sri S. Saha, the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3 and Mr. B.K. Roy had very close family relation with each other and Mr. B.B. Das is the ex-Chairman of TPSC and the husband of the sister of Mr. S. Saha, and Mr. B.K Roy is the classmate and close friend of Mr. B.B. Das and is a person in question in relation to the matter of extra-marital relation with the wife of the Petitioner, who committed a suicidal death due to constant threat by Mr. B.K. Roy for which the Petitioner apprehends that he may not get impartial justice if the case of the Petitioner is tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3. 5. Mr. B.K. Roy for which the Petitioner apprehends that he may not get impartial justice if the case of the Petitioner is tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3. 5. Mr. Kabir also placed reliance in the case of Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani AIR 1979 SC 468 which was also referred before the learned Sessions Judge wherein the Apex Court noted that: The assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of the parties or easy availability of legal service or like trivial grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. 6. Mr. Kabir further submits that though the learned Sessions Judge rightly held that the Sessions Court has no power to withdraw a sessions case, once transfer is made to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge within his jurisdiction and the trial of the said case has already been commenced, but at the same time, the learned Sessions Judge made some observation, inter alia, "I find no cogent ground for the Petitioner to seek transfer of the case. It appears the Petitioner out of illusory apprehension filed the petition seeking transfer of the case from a Court of competent jurisdiction to which it was made over by this Court for trial." 7. According to Mr. Kabir, when a learned Court is not in a position to exercise his power, that Court should not make any observation which normally would affect the interest of the Petitioner of that case. 8. Mr. Kabir also submits that it may happen that when the trial proceeds, the apprehension of the Petitioner so far as involvement of Mr. B.K. Roy is concerned appears to be correct and the Court may also ask the Investigating authority for re-investigation of the matter. 9. Mr. 8. Mr. Kabir also submits that it may happen that when the trial proceeds, the apprehension of the Petitioner so far as involvement of Mr. B.K. Roy is concerned appears to be correct and the Court may also ask the Investigating authority for re-investigation of the matter. 9. Mr. Kabir finally contended that when a justice seeker raises his voice in regard to impartiality of the Court, then the said Court should not take up the matter of the Petitioner to establish that justice not only should be done, but also to be shown to have done, particularly, in a case when a justice seeker is facing a trial for an offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC where maximum punishment is ten years. 10. Mr. D. Datta, learned Counsel for the Respondent 2, the informant of the aforesaid P.S. case, on the basis of which the criminal trial is proceeding, would contend that he has no objection if the sessions case being No. S.T 54 (WT/A) 2010 is withdrawn from the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3 to any other Sessions Court as the Respondent No. 2, the informant, the mother of the victim, wants a fair trial and fair justice from the Court of law. 11. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. though not objecting to the prayer for transfer of the sessions case, but raised his voice so far as the apprehension of the Petitioner is concerned, particularly, the alleged involvement of Mr. B.K. Roy, one of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government of Tripura on the ground that the police did not file any charge sheet against him, therefore, the Petitioner has no right to make any allegations against him. 12. As this Court is not sitting as a trial Court, it would not be proper for this Court to make any comment on the rival submissions of the parties relating to alleged involvement of Mr. B. K. Roy as that would be decided at the time of trial by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence. If the Petitioner can adduce some evidence for proving his apprehension, he can do that as the law provides him an opportunity to adduce evidence in a criminal trial where he is an accused. B. K. Roy as that would be decided at the time of trial by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence. If the Petitioner can adduce some evidence for proving his apprehension, he can do that as the law provides him an opportunity to adduce evidence in a criminal trial where he is an accused. In the instant case, as the Petitioner made a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as initiated against him by the police authority and at present under consideration in a session's trial and also for transfer of the said sessions case on withdrawal from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3 to transfer to any other Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, it would be proper for this Court to allow the said prayer. 13. While considering the aforesaid prayer of the Petitioner, this Court has also gone through the records as available, from which it appears that this is not a fit case where a criminal proceeding should be quashed. The Petitioner can at best raise his grievance before the Trial Court as permissible under law. But to remove the apprehension of the Petitioner, a justice seeker, this Court is of considered opinion that this is a fit case where the Court should pass an order for withdrawal of the sessions case No. S.T 54 (WT/A) 2010 from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3 and transfer the same in any other Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in exercise of its power vested on it under Section407 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. Article 21 of the Constitution prescribes that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law and by way of judgment, the Apex Court in its various decisions stated that right to life includes the right to livelihood and personal liberty includes fair trial. When a citizen has an apprehension based on some facts that he would not get fair trial in a Court of law, then it is the duty of the said Court to remove that apprehension and provide him fair trial and protect his right as enunciated under the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution. 15. When a citizen has an apprehension based on some facts that he would not get fair trial in a Court of law, then it is the duty of the said Court to remove that apprehension and provide him fair trial and protect his right as enunciated under the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution. 15. This Court is of opinion that where there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused in a trial basing on some facts that fair and impartial trial or enquiry cannot be had before the Court in which such trial or enquiry is pending against him. In that case, to repair the apprehension of the accused, the Court should transfer the case from the Court where the case is pending keeping in mind the principle that justice should not only be done, but should also manifestly and definitely appear to be done as decided by the Apex Court in Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi and Ors. AIR 1957 SC 425 . In para-4 of the said report, the Apex Court held thus: It is well settled that every member of a tribunal that is called upon to try issues in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings must be able to act judicially; and it is of the essence of judicial decisions and judicial administration that judges should be able to act impartially, objectively and without any bias. In such cases the test is not whether in fact a bias has affected the judgment; the test always is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the Tribunal. It is in this sense that it is often said that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. 16. It is also the duty of the Court to see whether the apprehension of the accused in his mind is genuine or not. Each and every allegation cannot be termed as reasonable one unless the same is based on facts. In the instant case, it is the admitted position that the presiding Judge Mr. Saha is the close relative of the ex-Chairman of the TPSC who is a friend of Mr. Each and every allegation cannot be termed as reasonable one unless the same is based on facts. In the instant case, it is the admitted position that the presiding Judge Mr. Saha is the close relative of the ex-Chairman of the TPSC who is a friend of Mr. B. K. Roy, according to the Petitioner, one of the suspect for causing death of the wife of the Petitioner. 17. Considering the entire gamut of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case where this Court should exercise its power under Section 407 of the of Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the sessions trial case No. ST 54 (WT/A) of 2010 pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3 is withdrawn and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 2. 18. The Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3 is directed to transmit all the relevant records of the aforesaid sessions case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 2. Upon receipt of the same, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2 shall issue notice to all the accused persons to appear before him for facing trial. 19. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the instant petition is partly allowed and disposed of.