ORDER : 1. The victim, who is the mother of the deceased, in SC.No.356/2007 of the Thrissur Sessions Division, has come up seeking the transfer of the case from the files of the IVth Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur to the Ist Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur. 2. It has come out that the evidence in the Sessions Case is voluminous. Altogether 46 witnesses were examined and a series of documents were marked in the case so far. Out of the 46 witnesses, who were examined, PW1 to PW45 were examined before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who is presently manning the Ist Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur, while he was the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur. During the course of the trial, i.e., after the examination of PW45, the said learned Additional Sessions Judge was transferred and posted as the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur. PW46 was examined before the Additional Sessions Judge, who is presently working as the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur. 3. The request of the petitioner is that when the voluminous evidence in the case was recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who is presently functioning as the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur, this case has to be transferred for trial to the said Additional Sessions Judge, and if not, the disposal of the case will be further delayed. When the said Judge, who had recorded the evidence of PW1 to PW45, is available at the station, and he had the occasion to note down the demeanour of all the said witnesses, it is just and proper in the interest of justice to transfer this case from the files of the IVth Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur to the files of the Ist Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur. 4. It seems that by invoking the provision under Section 408 Cr.P.C., the investigating officer had earlier approached the Sessions Court, Thrissur with a request to have a transfer of the case from the IVth Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur to the Ist Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur. It is trite law that a Sessions Judge, who has made over a case for trial to an Additional Sessions Judge, can recall the case or transfer the case after recalling it to another court, only when the trial has not been commenced in the case. The trial commences on the framing of charges. It is trite law that a Sessions Judge, who has made over a case for trial to an Additional Sessions Judge, can recall the case or transfer the case after recalling it to another court, only when the trial has not been commenced in the case. The trial commences on the framing of charges. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the said application through Annexure-A3 order. 5. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent has pointed out that service in Tr. P.C. is not complete on one of the other respondents. In fact, that is not a concern of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent has invited the attention of this Court to the decision in Nirmal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 SC 2759 . In that case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had transferred a case from the files of the Sessions Judge, Ambala to the files of the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh suo motu. In that case, none of the accused were served or heard. In that context, it was held that in fairness to the accused, it should have been done only after notice to the accused. 6. The decision in Nirmal Singh (Supra) has no application as far as the present case is concerned. In the case in Nirmal Singh (Supra), the case was transferred from Ambala to Chandigarh; whereas in this particular case, the Ist Additional Sessions Court is situated at the very same premises wherein the IVth Additional Sessions Court is situated. Apart from that, the present Tr. P. (Crl.) is one filed by the mother of the deceased, who is a victim within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The transfer is effected by this Court not on suo motu only. 7. There were a series of postings for the service of notice. Notice to the 9th respondent alone could not be served. Notices to the 9th respondent were repeatedly returned with the endorsement “not known” or “Addressee and family left place” etc. No doubt, it is evident that the 9th respondent is deliberately evading service. In such circumstances, notice to the 9th respondent is dispensed with. There is substantial representation for the accused as two counsel are appearing for the accused in the case. 8. No doubt, it is evident that the 9th respondent is deliberately evading service. In such circumstances, notice to the 9th respondent is dispensed with. There is substantial representation for the accused as two counsel are appearing for the accused in the case. 8. In cases wherein trial has been commenced before an Additional Sessions Judge, the High Court alone can exercise the power of transfer, by invoking the provision under Section 407(c)(ii) Cr.P.C. Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court that an order under the Section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it may order that any particular case be transferred from one court to another court. 9. On going through the matter, this Court is satisfied that in the interest of justice, this case has to be transferred from the files of the IVth Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur to the Ist Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur. In the result, this Transfer Petition (Criminal) is allowed and SC.No.356/2007 pending before the IVth Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur is transferred to the Ist Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur, forthwith. The learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur shall expedite the trial of the case and dispose it of, expeditiously.