Oral Judgment : 1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Application is filed under Section 407 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for transfer of the Special Case. 2. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant was working as District Agriculture Officer at Nandurbar when chargesheet came to be filed on the basis of trap laid under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Special Case No.21 of 2013 is pending in the Court of Special Judge, Nandurbar. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant-Accused, in the course of his posting at Nandurbar, had carried out various raids and taken various actions against the dealers, distributors and shop owners. According to the learned counsel for Applicant, the Applicant has apprehension if the trial takes place at Nandurbar, such dealers, distributors and shop owners will influence the witnesses and the Applicant will not get fair trial. The learned counsel referred to copies of documents at Page Nos.17 to 112, to show how the Applicant and his team of officers had taken various actions and even there were seizures of stocks. Learned counsel submitted that the Applicant has thus apprehension that the witnesses will be influenced by the persons against whom the Applicant has taken action during his posting at Nandurbar. 3. It is argued that the Applicant is suffering from spondylosis and learned counsel referred to document at Exhibit C whereby the Doctor has advised the Applicant not to sit for long and travelling for the Petitioner is difficult. The learned counsel submitted that on these two grounds of apprehension and for medical reasons, the Applicant wants the Petition to be transferred from the Court at Nandurbar to the Court at Nashik. 4. The learned counsel submitted that the Applicant, after the suspension, has been given his Head Quarter at Nashik and thus for attending the matter, he has to travel from Nashik to Nandurbar. Reliance was placed on the case of NaharSingh Yadav and another vs. Union of India, reported in A.I.R. 2011 Supreme Court Page 1549. The learned counsel submitted that the Supreme Court laid down some broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering application for transfer of the trial. Para 24 of the Judgment reads as under:- "24. Reliance was placed on the case of NaharSingh Yadav and another vs. Union of India, reported in A.I.R. 2011 Supreme Court Page 1549. The learned counsel submitted that the Supreme Court laid down some broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering application for transfer of the trial. Para 24 of the Judgment reads as under:- "24. Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said Section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of a trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are:- (i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution, (ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant, (iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses, (iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability of holding fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and (v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice." Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that he is relying on factor (iii) and (v), in support of his contentions for making the present request for transfer. 5. 5. Learned A.P.P. opposed the Petition contending that all the witnesses are from Nandurbar and most of the witnesses are Government servants and so there is no basis for apprehension. She submitted that the Applicant just cannot presume that persons concerned will influence and there is no basis for apprehension. Applicant's inconvenience compared with so many witnesses being made to travel is not comparable. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the Applicant as well as learned A.P.P. and considering the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Nahar Singh Yadav and another vs. Union of India", cited supra, it is clear that comparative hardship is a matter of consideration. In the present matter, the Applicant is claiming that he would suffer hardship because of medical reason. However, if copy of charge sheet, which has been shown at the time of arguments, is perused, there are 28 witnesses. The witnesses are from Nandurbar area and asking so many witnesses/persons to travel to Nashik for the convenience of the Applicant, does not appear to be justified. Experience shows as to how at times trials prolong and witnesses are required to keep coming again and get frustrated. Inconvenience of so many people cannot be ignored only because Applicant will be put to some inconvenience. If he is under suspension, time is at his disposal. 7. As regards the apprehension that the Applicant would not get fair trial, there does not appear basis for the same, other than pointing out that various actions were taken by the Applicant against the distributors, dealers and shop owners. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Nahar Singh Yadav and another vs. Union of India", cited supra, also mentions in factor (v) that there has to be “some material” from which it can be inferred that some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice. Merely because the Applicant has taken action against some persons, the same is not sufficient to show that there is possibility of the persons going out to the extent of influencing the witnesses and taking the risk of charge of tampering with evidence. Again, as stated, most witnesses are Government Officials. I do not think that ground is made out for transfer of the Sessions Case. 8. Again, as stated, most witnesses are Government Officials. I do not think that ground is made out for transfer of the Sessions Case. 8. For the reasons stated above, I find that there is no merit in the Criminal Application. The Criminal Application stands rejected.