Kalimullah Khan, J – This transfer application has been filed by 12 accused applicants, under section 407 Cr.P.C. to transfer Session Trial No. 753 of 2008 (State v Ashok Dixit and others) connected with Session Trial Nos. 757 of 2008, 758 of 2008 and 759 of 2008 pend­ing before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Firozabad to any other Court of competent jurisdiction of any adjoining dis­trict. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 3. The grounds for transfer have been taken in the transfer application itself. 4. According to the applicants they are accused in the aforesaid session trials, which were pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Firozabad, who after recording the evidence of prosecution and defence witnesses, heard the arguments of prosecution and when the date was fixed for final arguments of the accused, first informant, opposite party No. 2, Om Prakash Yadav, filed transfer application before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Firozabad to transfer the main Session Trial No. 753 of 2008 from the Court of the aforesaid learned Additional Ses­sions Judge, Court No. 9, Firozabad to any other Court of the competent jurisdiction on the ground that he had no faith in the Presiding Officer of the aforesaid Court. Comments were called for from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Firozabad by the learned Sessions Judge on which the Presiding Officer concerned submitted his report contending that the allegations made by the first informant are false but since the informant claims to have has lost confidence in him, he himself is not inclined to try the aforesaid sessions trials. Since the High Court has already given directions twice for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid trials, preferably within six months and therefore, he had sit tight over the matter and did not allow frivolous and fictitious attempted adjournments made by the parties. 5. Since the High Court has already given directions twice for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid trials, preferably within six months and therefore, he had sit tight over the matter and did not allow frivolous and fictitious attempted adjournments made by the parties. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and going through the records, including the comments of the concerned Presiding Officer, the learned Sessions Judge opined that the grounds of the transfer application bear no substance at all and that deserves to be dismissed but considering the unwill­ingness of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Firozabad, he transferred the aforesaid session trials from the Court of the concerned Presiding Officer to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Firozabad to proceed with the case in accordance with law. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant transfer application has been moved by accused applicants on the ground that some of the accused persons are still in jail for about six years, right since the year 2007 and in one way or the other the strategy of the first informant is that the aforesaid accused should languish in jail for indefinite period as pre-trial convict without getting their trials adjudicated in accordance with law and, therefore, he is accustomed to file number of transfer applications, more precisely, six in numbers, one after the other, as pleaded in para 11 of the transfer application. Learned Sessions Judge while allowing the transfer application of the first informant, has observed in so many words that the grounds taken by the informant in his transfer application are false and lacks substance still he allowed transfer application, as stated above. Since the informant has no faith in any of the Courts in the Firozabad judgeship, therefore, the aforesaid sessions trials should be transferred from Firozabad judgeship to the nearby judgeships in Uttar Pradesh. Due to the pressure tactics adopted by opposite party No. 2 and his supporters from the District Bar Association, Firozabad no advocate of the choice of the applicants want to come to defend them, resultantly, the applicants had to engage the services of advocates from another district Agra to appear and argue their case, although, the said advocate also had to face the ire of opposite party No. 2 and advocates of Firzoabad. The session trials had gone to the files of atleast five Additional Sessions Judges in the judgeship of Firozabad on the transfer application made by opposite party No. 2 but in none of those Presiding Officers he reposed confidence. It is noteworthy that evidence of some of the witnesses only have been recorded by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5 and the evidence of remain­ing prosecution witnesses and all the defence witnesses have been recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9. The Presiding Officer of the Court of the learned Addi­tional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5 has already been transferred to some other Sessions Division. 7. At present only the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Firozabad is there in the judgeship of Firozabad and all the other Additional Sessions Judges have been transferred from the said judgeship in regular course, therefore, according to them it is in the fitness of things to transfer all the aforesaid session trials to some other judgeship for trial according to law with strict directions to the Presiding Officer of the transferee Court to dispose of the session trials within a stipulated time bound frame. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No. 2, first informant, he denied that the aforesaid session trials have been transferred six times earlier, from one Court to another. It has further been stated that at an earlier occasion, one of the accused applicant namely; Ashok Dixit, having a criminal history of 69 criminal cases, had made Transfer Application No. 777 of 2008 on the ground that there was danger to his life in Firozabad judgeship. He made prayer in that application to transfer the session trials from Firozabad judgeship to some other district but the said transfer appli­cation was dismissed on merits by this Court and the Trial Court at Firozabad was directed to proceed with the matter on day to day basis and conclude the trial, preferably within a period of six months in the year 2011 but till date the trial could not be concluded. 9. 9. Apart from it, accused appli­cants had earlier filed petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court and in pursuance of the order passed therein, the first informant produced all the prosecution witnesses on the date fixed and in-as-much 23 prosecution witnesses have been examined, their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. have been recorded and number of wit­nesses have been produced and exam­ined in defence. The adjournment appli­cations, on one pretext or the other, made by the accused persons were rejected by the Trial Court. Twenty days time was prayed for by the prosecution for preparation of argument but the same was rejected by the same Presiding Officer and the informant had heard that he could not get justice from the said Court, therefore, he made transfer application before the learned Sessions Judge, who allowed his transfer applica­tion vide order dated 19.2.2012 and thereafter, this transfer application has been filed in this Court by the accused applicants on fictitious and frivolous grounds. 10. The applicants have filed rejoinder affidavit rebutting the pleadings made by the informant in his counter affidavit that he had not filed six transfer applications, one after the other. The details of the transfer applications, nature of proceedings etc; have been men­tioned in paragraph 9 of the rejoinder affidavit dated 2nd August 2013. Supplementary rejoinder affidavit has also been filed agitating the fact that infor­mant had made six Transfer Applications earlier and got the Session Trial transferred from one Court to other. 11. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. It is not in dispute between the parties that evidence of prosecution witnesses, 23 in numbers, and defence witnesses have already been recorded. Some of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses were recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Firozabad, who has now been trans­ferred from the judgeship of Firozabad to some other judgeship. Rest of the evidence of the prosecution and defence, major in portion, have been re­corded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Firozabad. It is also not in dispute that the Presiding Officer of the aforesaid Court No. 9, Fi­rozabad is still presiding over the same Court. It is also not in dispute that some of the accused persons are still in jail since the year 2007. It is also not in dispute that the Presiding Officer of the aforesaid Court No. 9, Fi­rozabad is still presiding over the same Court. It is also not in dispute that some of the accused persons are still in jail since the year 2007. This fact is also not disputed that the prosecution has al­ready completed its argument and now the arguments of the applicants were to be advanced but at this stage, the first informant, opposite party No. 2 had filed transfer application before the learned Sessions Judge concerned. Learned Counsel for the parties do admit that the said transfer application of the first informant was not allowed by the learned Sessions Judge on the allegations made by him against the Presiding Officer concerned. Learned Counsel for the parties further conceded that when the first informant levelled allegations against the learned Presiding Officer of Court No. 9, Firozabad and comments were called for from him by the learned Sessions Judge, he expressed his indifference to decide the aforesaid session trials. On one hand there was pressure in the shape of directions from the High Court, at least twice, to decide the ses­sion trials in question within six months and on the other hand parties were not co-operating with the Presiding Officer concerned on one pretext or the other. 13. The matter is highly contested. Parties often adopt lingering tactics on one pretext or the other and in such a scenario of facts, it is the common reaction of the Presiding Officer concerned to get rid of such matters, whenever occasion, if any, arises. When a transfer application is made against any Presiding Officer, normally he denies the allegation and yet in the concluding portion of his comments/reports, in specific words, he expresses his unwillingness to conduct the trial any further. The pre­sent comments/report sent by the Pre­siding Officer to the learned Sessions Judge on the transfer application made by the first informant, opposite party No. 2, is not an exception of the aforesaid general reaction of the Presiding Officers. 14. The scheme and spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 appears to be that one who has started a sessions trial must decide the same in-as-much as in a criminal trial the impression gathered by Presiding Officer about the demeanour of a witness goes a long way and plays a prominent part in deciding the trial. 15. 14. The scheme and spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 appears to be that one who has started a sessions trial must decide the same in-as-much as in a criminal trial the impression gathered by Presiding Officer about the demeanour of a witness goes a long way and plays a prominent part in deciding the trial. 15. The instant sessions trials are undisputedly part-heard trials of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Firozabad, who had recorded the evidence of a number of prosecution witnesses and evidence of all the defence witnesses, examined ac­cused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. and heard the arguments of prosecution and only the arguments of defence was to be heard by him for pronouncement of judgement, therefore, it is in the fit­ness of things and also the propriety demands that all the aforesaid four trials must be decided by him. His indiffer­ence and reluctance to decide the trials-in-question under the circumstances, noted above must be given go bye to ensure justice according to law. 16. To my mind, it would be a mockery to the judicial system that a party is given such a latitude to choose Presiding Officer of his own choice and then allow the Trial Court to proceed with the case. 17. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court appears to be under obligation, judicial as well as supervisory, to see that the session trials in question be disposed of by the available present Presiding Officer, who had got the opportunity of recording the evidence of prosecution and defence witnesses and to see their demeanour. Once the allegations made by the informant in the transfer application was found false, bearing no substance at all, the learned Sessions Judge was not supposed to allow his transfer application and recall the aforesaid session trials from the Court of the learned Addi­tional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Firo-zabad and transfer it to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Firozabad, who has neither recorded the evidence of prosecution and defence witnesses nor heard the arguments so far. 18. In the result, the transfer order dated 19.2.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Firozabad is, hereby, set aside. 19. Sessions Trial No. 753 of 2008 (State v Ashok Dixit and others) connected with Session Trial Nos. 18. In the result, the transfer order dated 19.2.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Firozabad is, hereby, set aside. 19. Sessions Trial No. 753 of 2008 (State v Ashok Dixit and others) connected with Session Trial Nos. 757 of 2008, 758 of 2008 and 759 of 2008 are recalled from the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Firozabad and transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Firozabad, who is directed to proceed with the tri­als strictly in accordance with the provi­sions contained under section 309 Cr.P.C. by proceedings day to day and conclude the trial within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear thereon 7.10.2013 before the learned Trial Court. Registry is directed to communicate copy of this order within three days to the learned Sessions Judge concerned as well as to the concerned Trial Court for compliance of the order "in letter and spirit. Direction Issued. _____________