JUDGMENT Hon’ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.—This application has been filed seeking transfer of Misc. Case No. 70 of 2016 and S.T. No. 224 of 2014 (State v. Anees alias Bholu and others and State v. Sharif alias Rais alias Pappu) arising out of case crime No. 209 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149,302 and 34 IPC, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi pending in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Jhansi to any other Court having competent jurisdiction outside the District of Jhansi.1 2. Shri Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed his power today on behalf of opposite party No. 2, which is taken on record 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 4. The sole submission raised by the counsel is that at some stage when the proceedings were going on, in which the accused claimed himself to be a juvenile, the Presiding Officer gave certain adverse expressions showing his anguish against such accused persons involved in such criminal activities as are allegedly involved in the case. Submission is that such adverse expressions gave rise to an apprehension in the mind of accused that justice may not be done with him and therefore the case should be transferred. No other ground has been pressed by the counsel. 5. Heard learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record. 6. Firstly, it may be taken note of that the allegation that has been made has been denied by the Presiding officer. But even if this Court presumes it to be true for the sake of argument then also in the considered opinion of the Court that does not constitute a legitimate ground to transfer the trial. While considering this aspect of the matter this Court had the occasion to deal with the subject at some length in Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 409 of 2016 (Smt. Kamla Jain v. State of U.P.) vide order dated 15.12.2016. The event of thinking aloud in the Court by the Presiding Officers is not an unprecedented happening. There are judges who prefer to remain silent but there are judges who are vocal and tend to give sometimes even adverse expressions. It should not be interpreted as if the Court has finally disclosed the mind for a particular final determination in the matter. There are judges who prefer to remain silent but there are judges who are vocal and tend to give sometimes even adverse expressions. It should not be interpreted as if the Court has finally disclosed the mind for a particular final determination in the matter. Often the Presiding Officers give out their minds only to give opportunity to the party to rebut what may be read against them. It is very often seen that despite the expressions which ostensibly appear to be adverse or even hostile in a given case, the Court changes its mind after receiving proper reply by the counsel. This is every day happening in the Court and simply because the presiding officer while hearing a matter gave out a piece of his mind at that particular stage is by no means to dub him as either unfair or being prejudiced. There is nothing on record to indicate that Presiding Officer is not an above-board officer or that his integrity is at all questionable. Though this Court would like to observe that for a judge the best way to speak is to speak through his order and judgements and that is the best way to avoid any such controversies which creep up simply because of being expressive. Simply on such a ground which has been taken, it will be too much for this Court to infer that the apprehension of the applicant is genuine. 7. While deciding the Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 409 of 2016 (Smt. Kamla Jain v. State of U.P.) this Court had the occasion to observe as follows : “The controversy in question is a patent reminder of the old maxim that the judges should prefer to hear rather than being heard and for a judge the best way to speak is to speak through his judgement. Had the trial judge heeded to these conventional words of pragmatic wisdom, he would have certainly avoided the controversy that has crept up in this matter as a result of just being verbose and for the reason of making some unmindful utterances which, though to this Court, appear to be nothing more than a little indiscretion of the presiding officer with the tongue. But vocal judges are not to be dubbed or be mistaken as dishonest judges and it must be remembered that to be expressive is not tantamount to be injudicious. But vocal judges are not to be dubbed or be mistaken as dishonest judges and it must be remembered that to be expressive is not tantamount to be injudicious. A judge may maintain complete reticence and yet may act injudiciously or even dishonestly in a given matter, just as a speaking judge may act judiciously and honestly, despite the contrary expressions which he may indulge in giving during the course of hearing. In fact, there is scarcely any legitimate nexus between being expressive and being dishonest or being vocal and being injudicious. The two are wholly unconnected entities. It is also not an unknown phenomenon that a judicial officer may make up his mind at one stage but soon thereafter in the light of the record and arguments would change his mind completely. The ostensibly dissenting or contrary expressions which sometimes the judicial officers tend to give in the Courts may appear to reflect an adverse or sometimes even a hostile mind but they are often given only to solicit and invite a thorough rebuttal of the things which may go against that party. Some judges prefer to convey to the party what is against him or what can be read against him, simply because the judge does not want to keep the party in dark and thus invites rebuttal of the same. But that is by no means to say that if a proper rebuttal is given by the party the judge would still stick to his stand and shall not accept the rebuttal. The judicial officers thinking aloud in the Court is not an unprecedented happening and it shall be too much to attribute any unfairness or prejudice to such judicial officer, if he does so. It has also been admitted before this Court by the counsel that the defence evidence is yet to be completed and the arguments are yet to be heard, and therefore,in the considered opinion of this Court it shall be wholly premature to anticipate what verdict would be ultimately pronounced by the trial Court in this matter. The unsubstantiated paranoia of an ultra-conscious litigant and his illegitimate apprehensions cannot constitute a legitimate ground to transfer the case from one Court to another. The unsubstantiated paranoia of an ultra-conscious litigant and his illegitimate apprehensions cannot constitute a legitimate ground to transfer the case from one Court to another. This Court while rejecting this application in the absence of any other insinuating material does express its implicit faith in the Court below and expects that the trial judge shall arrive at a just decision in the case remaining completely unprejudiced by any preoccupied notions or views, if at all he has any in his mind regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused, and it is expected that he shall pronounce his final verdict with complete judicial independence and with non-partisan dispassionate judiciousness. The presiding officer shall do well to remember that the act of doing justice has a touch of sublimity infused in it and it is a kind of divine functioning of man to dispense equity. To get afflicted by prejudice may be a human infirmity but the capability of man to disabuse himself from all prejudices is the first virtue of a judge.” 8. The Judges are also the parts of the society just as everybody else is and they do not live in ivory towers. The upsurge of particular type of social crimes which may sometimes appear to be revolting against the collective conscience of humanity, of which the judge himself is an integral part, causes concern to the judges also who in an important way have also to deal with such crimes in their judicial capacity. Therefore, if at some stage some judge ventilates his exasperation at commission or the escalation of certain crimes, such expressions must not be mistaken to be any abdication of judicious independent thinking. Nor should it be interpreted as an indication that such presiding officer shall not adhere to his sworn avowed duties as a Judge. The material as has been placed forth by the counsel does not appear to be good enough to persuade this Court to allow the application and transfer the trial. 9. The application lacks merit and hence stands dismissed.