ORDER The petitioner herein who is the de-facto complainant as Sub- Registrar, Srivilliputhur, has come forward with this application for transfer of S.T.C.No.164 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, Virudhungar District to any other Judicial Magistrate outside the Virudhunagar District. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while he was working as Sub-Registrar, Srivilliputhur, A1 to A7 went to Sub-Registrar Office, and demanded money for conducting Pattimandram which has been rejected and refused to give money and hence placed the digital board in front of the Sub-Registrar office stating that some of the staffs received bribes. On the basis of that, the petitioner herein gave a complaint and the case has been registered in Crime No.42 of 2014. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed which was taken on file in S.T.C.No.164 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur. On 27.07.2015, when PW.3 has gone for the Court for deposition and at that time, A3,A6 and A7 have threatened PW3 not to depose against them and immediately PW3 intimated to the superior PW1 and a complaint was forwarded to the respondent police. Since A6 is the Secretary of the Bar Association and A7 is an Advocate, she is having life threat and hence seeks for transfer the case. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision in the matter of Additional District Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, In re. reported in (2002) M.L.J (Crl) 946 and it was stated that the accused is an Advocate in that Bar and it is the reason for transfer to any other Court and prayed for orders. 3. Resisting the same, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that on the basis of the false complaint, the case has been registered. The reason assigned by the petitioner is invented for the purpose of filing the transfer application. He also has drawn the attention of this Court to page Nos. 19 and 20 and submitted that there is a variation in page Nos. 19 and 20 and the time of occurrence has not been mentioned. He further submits that the petitioner is very well intimated the same to the concerned Magistrate and approach the concerned police. He further submitted that PW1 to PW3; Chief has been over. 19 and 20 and submitted that there is a variation in page Nos. 19 and 20 and the time of occurrence has not been mentioned. He further submits that the petitioner is very well intimated the same to the concerned Magistrate and approach the concerned police. He further submitted that PW1 to PW3; Chief has been over. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. He further submits that the decision relied upon the petitioner is not applicable to the present case. After the incident, PW.1 appeared before the Court and filed a Memo, PW3. has not filed any document in support of the affidavit. 4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. 5. Considering the rival submissions, it is true that on the basis of the complaint given by the PW1, the petitioner herein, the case has been registered in Crime No.42 of 2014. After investigation, final report has been filed in S.T.C.No.164 of 2015, that the trial is commenced and the case has been registered against seven persons. Admittedly, A6 and A7 are the Advocates practicing concerned Bar A6 is the Secretary of the Bar Association. 6. Admittedly, according to the respondent Counsel, only PW1 to PW3 chief alone is over and cross examination is yet to be over. It is the admitted fact that on 27.07.2015 PW1 to PW3 attended the Court and deposed in the chief examination and it is over and cross examination is yet to be commenced. It is also admitted fact that on 27.07.2015, PW3 attended the Court who has given a complaint to PW.1 on 27.07.2015, in that he specifically stated that A3, A6 and A7 have threatened him but that has been received by PW1 and forwarded to the police and found place in page No.20, but, the time is not mentioned. 7. It is also admitted fact that on 27.07.2015, PW3 attended the Court who has given a complaint to PW.1 on 27.07.2015, in that he specifically stated that A3, A6 and A7 have threatened him but that has been received by PW1 and forwarded to the police and found place in page No.20, but, the time is not mentioned. 7. In such circumstances, merely because, no supporting affidavit filed by PW3 will not take away the right of the petitioner to file an application, because in that A1 to A7 entered into the Sub- Registrar Office and they have demanded money for conducting Pattimandram, since they have not given the amount, then only fixed the flex board mentioned that the staff and the Sub-Registrar received bribe and on the basis only, a case has been registered and final report filed. 8. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for transfer stating that it is not conducive for prosecution witness to attend the Court under the life threat. The decision relied upon the petitioner in the case of Additional District Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, In re. reported in (2002) M.L.J (Crl) 946. It is appropriate to incorporate in para 7' which reads as follows: "7. In this case, the trial Court has given a valid reason that the accused was a practising Advocate of the same Court and prayed for transfer of the case to any other Court outside the District. The report of the lower Court seeking for transfer is reasonable. Further, the counsel for the accused has also no objection for the same. Hence, it is ordered that S.C.No.286 of 2000 pending on the file of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate is transferred to Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli. The Additional District Judgecum- Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to forward the bundles to the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, within seven days from the receipt of this order, on receipt of the same, the learned Principal District Judge, is directed to dispose of the case within on month. The petition is ordered on the above terms." 9. In that decision, even though the accused has no objection for transfer, on the basis of the report from the concerned Judicial Officer, the transfer has been ordered. 10. The petition is ordered on the above terms." 9. In that decision, even though the accused has no objection for transfer, on the basis of the report from the concerned Judicial Officer, the transfer has been ordered. 10. Here, in case on hand, once A6 and A7 who are the practicing Advocate and the Secretary of the Bar Association there is an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the accused A6 and A7 who is the practicing Advocate and the Secretary of the Bar Association and they will made a life threat. Hence, applying the ratio of the decision in the case reported in (2002) M.L.J (Crl) 946, I am of the view, it is a fit case for transferring the case in S.T.C.No. 164 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil. Hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, is directed to transmit the entire case in S.T.C.No.164 of 2015 to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, is directed to dispose of the same within a period of three months thereafter. 11. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.