JUDGMENT Mr. Gurdev Singh, J.: - The petitioner, Suraj Mal, who is standing his trial for the offences under Sections 302 and 328 IPC in FIR No. 357 dated 6.8.2008, before the Court of Dr. Neelima Shangla, Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, has filed this petition under Section 407 Cr.P.C. for the transfer of that case to some other Court of competent jurisdiction, on the ground pleaded therein. 2. According to him, the trial is being conducted by the said Additional Sessions Judge in a prejudicail manner and he is not expecting real justice from that Court. It has been expressed by her openly, on so many occasions, that he has to be convicted. On 19.4.2010, his wife was called by her in her chamber and was told that her husband has done wrong and she was going to convict him and that she should start his new life by taking divorce from him. When she was so called in the chamber, Usha Singh, Sat Pal, Lila Ram and Sandeep were present in the Court. He moved a similar application before the Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, for getting the case transferred, but the same was dismissed. He has every apprehension that he would not get the real justice from the said court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. 4. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the contentions made in the petition that the wife of the petitioner was so called by the Presiding Officer, in her chamber, and was told that he is to be convicted, stand supported by the affidavits of Usha Singh and others. According to him, the attitude of the Presiding Officer is very much apparent that she is going to convict the petitioner. The State counsel has tried to controvert the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. 5. The comments of the Presiding Officer were called, as allegations were made against her in the petition. She has denied all those facts while submitting her detailed comments. In those comments, she has also tried to point out that the stand of the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, in the application filed for transfer of the case, was different. She has succeeded to that extent. The application, so moved before the Sessions Judge has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. In those comments, she has also tried to point out that the stand of the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, in the application filed for transfer of the case, was different. She has succeeded to that extent. The application, so moved before the Sessions Judge has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. In that application, the petitioner has alleged that on 19.2.2010 and 20.4.2010 when his wife Anju appeared in the court as defence witness, it was told to her by the Judge that she is going to convict her husband and she should start a new life by taking divorce from him. In the present petition, he has contended that all those facts were told to the wife of the petitioner after calling her to the chamber. 6. In these circumstances, this court is not inclined to accept the contentions so made in the petition. This practice of levelling such allegations against the Presiding Officers, without any basis, must be stopped. 7. However, keeping in view the apprehension of the petitioner that he will not get justice at the hands of the said Presiding Officer and by following the principle that justice must not actually be done but seems to have been done, case titled as “State vs. Suraj Mal and another” is withdrawn from the file of Court of Dr. Neelima Shangla, Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, and is transferred to Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, for deciding the same in accordance with law. 8. Parties are directed to appear before Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, on 17.3.2011. 9. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------