JUDGMENT : JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J. 1. Petitioner prays for transfer of proceeding in Special Case No. 12/2011 pending before the learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas arising out of RC No. 0102010A0028 dated 23rd August, 2010 under sections 420/409 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 13(2)/13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1968 on the ground of bias of judicial personnel. Petitioner is facing trial in the instant case since 2013 when charge was framed against the petitioner on 21st September, 2013. On and from 5th December, 2013 prosecution witnesses were examined and such examination was concluded on 24th November, 2016 whereupon dates were fixed on 19th December, 2016, 20th December, 2016 and 3rd January, 2017 respectively for examination of the petitioner under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 3rd January, 2017 learned advocate for the petitioner sought for time to go through the evidence in the records of the case and the matter was again fixed for examination of the petitioner under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 5th January, 2017. On that date, petitioner made an application for recalling of most of the prosecution witnesses namely, PW1 to 6 on the ground of inartistic examination by his previous lawyer. Such prayer came to be rejected by the trial court by order dated 11th January, 2017 and date was fixed for examination of defence witnesses on 12th January, 2017 and 13th January, 2017, in default, for arguments. It may be apposite to note that the order dated 11th January, 2017 refusing the prayer to recall the prosecution witnesses has been upheld by this Court in C.R.R. 224 of 2017 by order dated 31st January, 2017. On 12th January, 2017 prayer was made on behalf of the defence to allow him to talk to his witnesses as to their convenience to appear before the trial for adducing evidence. Under such circumstances, the case was adjourned and matter was fixed on 13th January, 2017. On 13th January, 2017 petitioner came up with a prayer for examination of six defence witnesses on various dates upto July, 2017. Under such circumstances, the case was adjourned and matter was fixed on 13th January, 2017. On 13th January, 2017 petitioner came up with a prayer for examination of six defence witnesses on various dates upto July, 2017. Such prayer, however, did not find favour with the trial court who while rejecting the same observed that the petitioner had been extended 'misplaced sympathy' and fixed the matter for examination of defence witnesses on 30th January, 2017 and 31st January, 2017 and for arguments on 4th February, 2017. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for transfer of the proceeding on the ground that the trial Judge is conducting the proceeding contrary to the fair procedure contemplated in law and exposed bias towards the defence. 2. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned senior advocate, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial Judge acted unfairly in refusing to extend adequate opportunity to the defence to examine his witnesses who are residing/working for gain at various places in the country and in an unfair manner and directed all the defence witnesses to be examined by 31st January, 2017. He accordingly, prayed for transfer of the proceeding. 3. Mr. Ali, learned advocate, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted that the learned trial Judge has conducted the proceeding in a just and fair manner and adequate opportunity was given to the defence to examine witnesses. He further submitted that it cannot be the luxury of the defence to pray for long adjournments on the ground of inconvenience of witnesses and protract the proceeding interminably. Hence, the observations made by the learned trial Judge in the aforesaid factual matrix cannot be said to a product of biased judicial mind but a fair comment as to the conduct of a party to the litigation. 4. I have considered the materials on record. Prosecution evidence in the instant case was closed on 24th November, 2016. Thereafter, on three days namely, 19th December, 2016, 20th December, 2016 and 3rd January, 2017 matter was fixed for examination of the petitioner under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but such examination could not be held as the petitioner did not present himself before the trial court and the court was constrained to adjourn the matter for examination of the petitioner on his prayer. Such examination was ultimately held on 5th January, 2017. Such examination was ultimately held on 5th January, 2017. The aforesaid conduct of the trial court in accommodating the petitioner on three several days for examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not speak of any bias or unjust attitude towards the petitioner but shows a just and reasonable approach to the trial of the case wherein reasonable accommodation was extended to the petitioner so that he may prepare himself for his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the course of trial. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner prayed for re-examination of the prosecution witnesses which, however, came to be turned down by the trial court and was affirmed by this Court in C.R.R. 224 of 2017. In the meantime, the matter was fixed for examination of defence witnesses on 12th January, 2017 and 13th January, 2017 and in default, for arguments. On 12th January, 2017 petitioner made a prayer for adjournment on the ground that he would like to consult his witnesses for their examination in Court. Accordingly, adjournment was granted and matter was fixed on 13th January, 2017. On 13th January, 2017 petitioner made prayer for examination of such witnesses in a phased manner till the end of July, 2017 which, however, was not extended by the trial court observing that the necessity of speedy trial cannot yield to such indulgence to the defence. While rejecting such prayer the trial court had expressed opinion as to extending 'misplaced sympathy' to the petitioner. It has been argued at the Bar that such expression shows hostility of the Court towards the defence. From the aforesaid factual matrix of the case it appears that the trial court had extended adequate opportunity to the petitioner for examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter, had given him time to consult his witnesses and give the Court a schedule for examination of such witnesses. Such procedure adopted by the trial court cannot, in my estimation, be treated as an unfair and unjust attitude of an adjudicator towards a party to the litigation. On the other hand, it shows the sensitivity of the court to the twin concerns of fair trial and extending of adequate opportunity for preparing of defence on the one hand and the necessity of conclusion of trial at an early date on the other hand. On the other hand, it shows the sensitivity of the court to the twin concerns of fair trial and extending of adequate opportunity for preparing of defence on the one hand and the necessity of conclusion of trial at an early date on the other hand. Principle of speedy justice was sought to be addressed without compromising on the right of the petitioner in preparing his defence when the petitioner was called upon to consult his witnesses and give a schedule for examination of such witnesses on the next date of hearing. However, taking advantage of such privilege the petitioner made an unreasonable prayer for examination of defence witnesses in a phased manner till July, 2017. It must be borne in mind that trial in criminal cases is to be conducted on a day to day basis in terms of section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Examination of witnesses in the course of trial, be it by the prosecution or the defence, must yield to the aforesaid mandate of law. 6. Hence, I do not find any illegality or unfairness in the conduct of the trial court in insisting on the defence to examine witnesses a day to day in the instant case as required under section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I also note that subsequently the Court had issued summons upon the defence witnesses and the matter has been fixed for their examination on 20th February, 2017, 21st February, 2017 and 22nd February, 2017 respectively. 7. Under such circumstances, I am unable to accede to the prayer of transfer as prayed by the petitioner, However, I direct the trial court to examine the defence witnesses in the instant case in terms of the schedule so fixed by him and if the defence is unable to adhere to such schedule due to circumstances beyond its control to positively conclude such examination within three months thereof and conclude the trial at an early date without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.