JUDGMENT : APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Petitioner is facing trial in connection with criminal cases arising out of fodder scam of erstwhile State of Bihar before the learned Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi. Earlier learned Single Judge of this Court had discharged three accused persons the present petitioner, Sajal Chakraborty and Dr. Jagannath Mishra on the ground of their conviction in one of the criminal cases arising out of Fodder Scam applying the provision under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr. PC). The petitioner was discharged in connection with the instant case R.C. No. 64A/1996 while Dr. Jagannath Mishra was discharged in 4 cases being R.C. Nos. 64A/96, 47A/96, 68A/96 and 38A/96. On the same ground Sajal Chakraborty was also discharged in two cases being R.C. Nos. 20A/96 and 68A/96. These accused have been convicted in one of the cases for offence involving the same ingredients with respect to Chaibasa Treasury. The State of Jharkhand through SP, CBI went in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said judgment being Cr. Appeal No. 394/2017 (in the case of Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav, the present petitioner), Cr. Appeal No. 393/2017 (in the case of Sajal Chakraborty) and Cr. Appeal No. 395/2017 (in the case of Dr. Jagannath Mishra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court have by the judgment dated 8.8.2017 allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court and directed the trial Court concerned to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as far as possible within a period of nine months from the date of the judgment. That is why the present petitioner is facing trial in the instant RC No. 64A/96. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to transfer the RC No. 64A/96 case from the Court of learned Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD) Ranchi Mr. Shiv Pal Singh apprehending that a fair and impartial trial cannot be held an the grounds mentioned in the petition. The present case relates to fraudulent withdrawal from the Deoghar Treasury. It would be pertinent to mention here that besides the instant case petitioner is facing trial in RC No. 68A/1996 before the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI - I (AHD Scam), Ranchi Mr. The present case relates to fraudulent withdrawal from the Deoghar Treasury. It would be pertinent to mention here that besides the instant case petitioner is facing trial in RC No. 68A/1996 before the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI - I (AHD Scam), Ranchi Mr. S.S. Prasad, RC No. 47A/1996 before the learned Court of Special Judge, CBI-III (AHD Scam), Ranchi Mr. Pradeep Kumar and RC No. 38A/1996 before the same Court of Special Judge, CBI-VII (AHD Scam), Ranchi Mr. Shiv Pal Singh. 3. Though the petitioner has alleged in general that the learned Court was not fair to him and put obstacles in his defence, the learned senior counsel far the petitioner Mr. Suresh Singh an the basis of the averments made specifically cited four such instances to substantiate the apprehension of the petitioner that he may not have a fair trial before the learned Judge. The first instance relates to the proceeding dated 29.7.2017 before the learned Court. Shri Sunil Kumar (IPS), D.G.P. Police Academy, Patna, Bihar, who was summoned to appear on 29.7.2017 could not appear on the said date. Though this was also informed to the Court, the learned Court, however, directed stoppage of his salary. The learned Court fixed the date of examination of this witness Sunil Kumar on 10.8.2017. It is alleged that the learned trial Court exceeded jurisdiction and passed an order of withholding the salary in an arbitrary manner since in such a case a fine of Rs. 100/- can only be imposed. 4. The next date for adducing the defence witness was fixed on 3.8.2017. On the next date at 11:00 a.m. the petitioner put his attendance along with two other witnesses namely Shri Mukund Prasad and Shri Kanhaiya Kumar. Annexure-3 is in support thereof. A petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner on the same date stating that due to some urgent official work, this witness could not turn up his deposition earlier. Since today Shri Sunil Kumar is present he may be permitted to examine as defence witness. It is stated that defence witness No. 11 Shri Mukund Prasad was examined in chief and cross-examined on 3.8.2017 at 11:00 a.m. When Shri Sunil Kumar entered into the witness box, the learned Presiding Judge started examination of the witness by asking his name, father's name, nationality, religion, age, village, Police Station, etc. It is stated that defence witness No. 11 Shri Mukund Prasad was examined in chief and cross-examined on 3.8.2017 at 11:00 a.m. When Shri Sunil Kumar entered into the witness box, the learned Presiding Judge started examination of the witness by asking his name, father's name, nationality, religion, age, village, Police Station, etc. and whether he belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or not. When the witness answered the question posed whether he qualified in general category or reserved category, learned Judge, suddenly got annoyed with the witness and tore the statement recorded by him. The aforesaid conduct of the learned Court was unheard of and demoralized the witness as well. The incidence was reported in the newspapers as well. The said witness had been summoned in RC No. 68A/96 also in the Court of other Special Judge, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi on the said date and therefore a request was made to the learned Court to examine him as a witness. As per the statement made in para-13 of the petition even though the defence counsel had informed the Court that such a petition had been filed at 11:00 a.m. and the witness also made a request but the learned Court refused the prayer. The conduct of the learned Court in destroying the official record i.e. deposition of witness has shaken the confidence of the petitioner, that he may not get justice before the same Court. There was ostensibly no reason why the said witness Sunil Kumar could not have been examined on the same date 3.8.2017 when three witnesses on behalf of the defence were present. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while DW-11 Mukund Prasad was examined on their behalf, DW-12 Kanhaiya Kumar was given up. The learned Court has given a fanciful reason that it was busy in other judicial work and that the said witness has been summoned for 10.8.2017, therefore his witness could not be recorded on that date. 6. Earlier the learned Court had also refused the prayer of the petitioner made under Section 317 of the Cr. PC on political and medical ground, requiring him to be physically present on each date when his witness is to be examined. Petitioner has always appeared as and when directed by the Court since trial commenced in the year 2005. 6. Earlier the learned Court had also refused the prayer of the petitioner made under Section 317 of the Cr. PC on political and medical ground, requiring him to be physically present on each date when his witness is to be examined. Petitioner has always appeared as and when directed by the Court since trial commenced in the year 2005. He is 70 years old and has undergone heart operation in the year 2014. He also suffers from Diabetes and high-blood pressure. 7. It has been further urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been advised by the doctor to keep a medical attendant with emergency medicine. However, the learned Court on 3.8.2017 ordered his attendant to go out of the Court. It is alleged that the act of learned Court clearly shows that it is biased and a fair and impartial trial would not be possible before the said Court. 8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has finally urged that the proceeding of the case on 10.8.2017 have completely convinced the petitioner that there are no chances of a fair trial before the said Court. On 10.8.2017 petitioner moved a petition that he had approached the High Court in Transfer Petition (Cr.) No. 13/2017 and the case has been fixed for 18.8.2017. The learned Court was requested to grant three weeks time. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the instruction contained in general letter No. 3/1963 issued on 15.4.1963 by the Registrar, Patna High Court issued to all District Judges in Bihar and Judicial Commissioner of Ranchi were also brought to the noticed of the learned Court that 15 days' time may be granted when the party moved a superior Court for bringing a stay order. According to the petitioner, not only did the learned Court fixed the next date from 17.8.2017 to 19.8.2017, but the said witness Sunil Kumar was examined as a Court witness. Approach of the learned trial Court to get the defence witness examined as Court witness was incomprehensible. Petitioner has been denied the opportunity to lead its own witness and elicit his answers on such questions which the petitioner could have asked in his defence. Statements made during examination of Sunil Kumar and cross- examined by the Public Prosecutor, C.B.I. could also prejudice the case of the defence. Petitioner has been denied the opportunity to lead its own witness and elicit his answers on such questions which the petitioner could have asked in his defence. Statements made during examination of Sunil Kumar and cross- examined by the Public Prosecutor, C.B.I. could also prejudice the case of the defence. In these circumstances, the petitioner has a genuine apprehension that a fair and impartial trial is not possible before the same Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Usmangani Adambhai Vahora vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2016 (2) East Cr C 85 (SC) : AIR 2016 SC 336 , para-7 thereof in support of his submissions. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Choudhary vs. The State, AIR 1960 Pat 160 , Para-9 and 10 thereof. It is argued that the requirement of a fair trial cannot be crucified on the ground of conducting an expeditious trial under the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment passed in Cr. Appeal No. 394/2017 and other analogous appeals dated 8.5.2017. The trial of the petitioner in other criminal cases arising out of Fodder Scam is also going on in other CBI Courts at Ranchi where the instant case can also be transferred to ensure a fair trial which would not cause any delay in the conclusion of the trial. Petitioner has on his part never indulged in delaying tactics. Therefore the petition may be allowed. 10. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo has, at the outset, referred to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of the petitioner and other accused persons in Cr. Appeal No. 394/2017 and other analogous Criminal Appeals, dated 8.5.2017, whereunder the learned Court has been directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as far as possible within a period of nine months from the date of the judgment. Countering the specific allegations made on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. Deo has submitted that the witness Sunil Kumar, who should be aggrieved with any direction of stoppage of his salary by order dated 29.7.2017 has never challenged the said order. Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a grievance on his behalf in that respect. Countering the specific allegations made on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. Deo has submitted that the witness Sunil Kumar, who should be aggrieved with any direction of stoppage of his salary by order dated 29.7.2017 has never challenged the said order. Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a grievance on his behalf in that respect. The learned Court had by the order dated 29.7.2017 fixed the date for examination of the defence witness Sunil Kumar on 10.8.2017. The learned trial Court had fixed 3.8.2017 for examination of 2 defence witnesses namely Mukund Prasad DW-11 and Kanhaiya Kumar DW-12. The learned Court found that Sunil Kumar did not appear to be examined even after 2 summons-one on 17.7.2017 and second on 28.7.2017. Therefore, it was constrained to direct his appearance on 10.8.2017 while also directing for stoppage of his salary. The learned Court was under the mandate to conclude the trial expeditiously. On 3.8.2017 two of the defence witnesses of the petitioner were produced for examination. While DW Mukund Prasad was examined on their behalf, however defence witness Kanhaiya Kumar was not examined. The petitioner does not have any complaints in relation to the conduct of the learned Court in the examination of these two witnesses on the said date by the same Court. The prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to examine Sunil Kumar on 3.8.2017 was not allowed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, there was no occasion for his examination on that date. Besides the fact that the learned trial Court had other judicial work to discharge on that day, as a matter of rule, prior notice is necessary to the Public Prosecutor also before any such witness is to be examined on any particular day. If the date for examination of DW Sunil Kumar was fixed on 10.8.2017, the learned Court was right in refusing to record its examination on the said date. When the prayer made for his examination was specifically refused, as would be evident from the endorsement made on such petition by the learned trial Court the witness could not have entered the witness box for an examination. Therefore, all the plea relating to the conduct of the learned trial Court in the matter of examination of defence witness Sunil Kumar on 3.8.2017 is without any substance and untenable in law. Therefore, all the plea relating to the conduct of the learned trial Court in the matter of examination of defence witness Sunil Kumar on 3.8.2017 is without any substance and untenable in law. Learned counsel further submitted that on 10.8.2017 witness Sunil Kumar appeared and requested to be examined as is also evident from the order dated 10.8.2017. Hence the said witness, who is an officer belonging to IPS cadre, was examined as a Court witness and cross-examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, the witness was discharged. There is nothing in the statements of the witness of Sunil Kumar which would dilute the prosecution case. 11. Learned counsel, for the C.B.I. has relied upon the provisions of Section 407, Cr. PC more specifically sub-section (2) and proviso thereof in support of his contentions that the petitioner has straightway approached this Court without moving an application before the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, though the plea of the petitioner relates to the transfer of the case from one criminal Court to another criminal Court in the same sessions division. He submits that the language of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 407 in clear terms shows the intendment of the Legislature that it is mandatory. He has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2004) 6 SCC 672 and (2007) 1 SCC 49 in support of this submission. 12. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has sought to convey that the present petitioner has a tendency to delay the trial on these frivolous grounds. Earlier also the same petitioner had sought transfer of another case being RC No. 20A/1996 arising out of the Fodder Scam from the Court of Special Judge-IV, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi. After the plea was rejected by this Court in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1619 of 2013 the matter traveled up to the Apex Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find any reason to entertain such an objection at the fag end of the trial and dismissed the Cr. Appeal No. 1166/2013 by judgment dated 13.8.2013. Trial of the present case is being conducted in an expeditious manner by the learned Special Judge, CBI in view of the judgment dated 8.5.2017. The petitioner has not been able to show any concrete material to substantiate any reasonable apprehension of bias against the Trial Judge. Appeal No. 1166/2013 by judgment dated 13.8.2013. Trial of the present case is being conducted in an expeditious manner by the learned Special Judge, CBI in view of the judgment dated 8.5.2017. The petitioner has not been able to show any concrete material to substantiate any reasonable apprehension of bias against the Trial Judge. There is no such real apprehension that there would be miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel has referred to the statements made in their counter-affidavit to refute the allegations made by the petitioner that the learned trial Court was having a bias while refusing to permit examination of the witness Sunil Kumar on 3.8.2017. Since, the date of his examination was fixed on 10.8.2017, his evidence was not taken on 3.8.2017. At para-11 of the counter-affidavit it is categorically stated that a petition for examination of Shri Sunil Kumar was filed on 3.8.2017 but before the petition was moved and order could be passed. Shri Sunil Kumar was sent to the witness box for recording his statement. Statements made in para-12 of the transfer petition relating to recording of certain particulars of name, age, nationality, religion, caste etc. have been denied as false and misleading at para-12 of the counter-affidavit. In reply to the statements made at para-14 of the transfer petition, it has been further stated that since statement of Shri Sunil Kumar was not taken on 3.8.2017 in RC No. 64A/96-Pat, the same was not kept on record as his statement was to be taken on 10.8.2017. Similar statements have been made in reply at para-15 of the counter-affidavit. He has also controverted the statements made in para-16 of the transfer petition as being false and misleading and intended to demoralize the learned Special Judge in discharge of his duties in a fair and impartial manner. In reply to the allegations made at para-18 that the learned Court had refused the prayer made under Section 317 of the Cr. PC on political and medical ground, it is specifically stated at para-18 of the counter-affidavit that the learned trial Court had asked the petitioner to remain present on the date when witness in his defence would be examined. His petition on other dates filed under Section 317, Cr PC have been allowed. 13. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. Mr. PC on political and medical ground, it is specifically stated at para-18 of the counter-affidavit that the learned trial Court had asked the petitioner to remain present on the date when witness in his defence would be examined. His petition on other dates filed under Section 317, Cr PC have been allowed. 13. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. Mr. K.P. Deo has made categorical reference to their reply at para-23 and contended that the allegation of the petitioner that his attendant was ordered to go out of the Court is a misinterpretation of the order. He has tried to elaborate that at the time of hearing in such matters party workers and other leaders also used to occupy the seats earmarked for Advocates and for the same reason the learned trial Court has asked them to remain outside of the Courtroom. C.B.I. in its reply at para-25 to the allegation made at para-26 of the transfer petition also contended that when the statement of Shri Sunil Kumar was not recorded, where is the question of tearing the deposition. Learned counsel has further pointed out that after 3.8.2017 the learned Court has issued summons to one Mr. A.P. Dural, D.G. Railway (Recd) and Brigadier R.P. Nautiyal who were related with Dural Commission Inquiry Report as per the list already submitted by the petitioner. Relying upon these assertions and denials of facts and the legal submissions made learned counsel for the C.B.I. has strongly opposed the prayer for transfer of the trial to any other Court. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record. 15. As noted above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had quashed the discharge of the petitioner earlier in the instant case i.e. R.C. No. 64A/96 and directed the learned trial Court to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as far as possible within a period of nine months from the date of the judgment i.e. dated 8.5.2017. Trials in respect of 4 such cases i.e. the instant case RC No. 64A/96 and RC No. 47A/96, 68A/96 and 38A/96 are also going on against the petitioner in different CBI Courts. Apart from the trial of RC No. 64A/96, the trial of RC No. 38A/96 is also going on against the petitioner in the same Court of Special Judge, CBI-VII (AHD Scam). Ranchi. 16. Apart from the trial of RC No. 64A/96, the trial of RC No. 38A/96 is also going on against the petitioner in the same Court of Special Judge, CBI-VII (AHD Scam). Ranchi. 16. When the matter was taken up on 18.8.2017 a report was called for from the Court of Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi in connection with the instant case RC No. 64A/96 in relation to the proceeding of the case after passing of the judgment by the Apex Court in Cr. Appeal No. 394/17 dated 8.5.2017 and specially in relation to the proceedings dated 29.7.2017, 3.8.2017 and 10.8.2017. From perusal of the report contained in letter No. 699 dated 23.8.2017 it appears that in the light of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present petitioner and Dr. Jagannath Mishra were directed to remain physically present in the Court on 9.6.2017. On 22.6.2017 a list of defence witness was filed on behalf of the present petitioner for issue of summons upon the defence witnesses. Summon was directed to be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce five witnesses. On 29.6.2017 one defence witness namely Suresh Paswan was examined, cross-examined and discharged as DW-1. On 30.6.2017 a petition was filed under Section 317(1) of the Cr. PC by the petitioner for exemption from personal appearance during defence evidence in this case. The learned trial Court however directed the petitioner to remain present with their witnesses on the fixed date as the case was running for defence evidence on his behalf. On 7.7.2017 two defence witnesses namely Pavitra Paswan and Ejaj Hussain were produced on behalf of the petitioner and the same were examined, cross-examined and discharged as DW-2 and DW-3. On 13.7.2017 two more defence witnesses were produced on his behalf namely Jai Prakash Narayan Yadav and Md. Jainul who were also examined, cross-examined and discharged as DW-4 and DW-5. On 14.7.2017 further two witnesses namely Gunjan Kumar and Ram Pani Singh were produced on behalf of the petitioner and they were also discharged after examination and cross-examination as DW-6 and DW-7. On 20.7.2017 one defence witness Shashi Bhushan Sharma was produced by the petitioner. He was also discharged after his examination and cross-examination as DW-8. On 14.7.2017 further two witnesses namely Gunjan Kumar and Ram Pani Singh were produced on behalf of the petitioner and they were also discharged after examination and cross-examination as DW-6 and DW-7. On 20.7.2017 one defence witness Shashi Bhushan Sharma was produced by the petitioner. He was also discharged after his examination and cross-examination as DW-8. On the same date a service report of Dasti Summon of witness was filed on behalf of the petitioner in respect of summon of witnesses namely Sadanand Singh, Mukul Prasad and Sunil Kumar. In the service report of witness Sunil Kumar it was reported that he will be on leave on that date. On 21.7.2017 two more defence witnesses namely Rajendra Khan and Sayeed Kamal Hussain were produced by the petitioner who were examined, cross-examined and discharged as DW-9 and DW-10. On 22.7.2017 a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner that witness Sunil Kumar and Sadanand Singh could not appear before the Court. Therefore, prayer was made to dispense with their physical appearance on the said date. A petition was filed thereafter on 22.7.2017 on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of fresh summons against the witness namely Sunil Kumar, IPS, through DGP, Patna, Bihar. The same was allowed and summons were issued by FAX through Special P.P. of C.B.I. fixing the case for defence evidence on 29.7.2017. On 29.7.2017 a letter was sent by witness Sunil Kumar, DGP, Police Academy, Patna that he would be coming in R.C. No. 68A/96 for adducing evidence on 3.8.2017. The learned Court however after perusal of the case record found that after receipt of summon on 17.7.2017 and 28.7.2017 he did not appear and comply with the order. Therefore, office was directed to inform Government of Bihar for holding up his salary till disposal of his evidence and the case was fixed for 10.8.2017 for his defence witness. On 3.8.2017 attendance was filed on behalf of the three witnesses namely Mukund Prasad, Sunil Kumar and Kanhaiya Kumar. Only defence witness Mukund Prasad was examined, cross-examined and discharged as DW-11. A petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner that since Sunil Kumar is present in Court and attendance has been filed, he may be examined as defence witness. On 3.8.2017 attendance was filed on behalf of the three witnesses namely Mukund Prasad, Sunil Kumar and Kanhaiya Kumar. Only defence witness Mukund Prasad was examined, cross-examined and discharged as DW-11. A petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner that since Sunil Kumar is present in Court and attendance has been filed, he may be examined as defence witness. However, the learned Court observed that since the defence evidence of the witness Sunil Kumar was fixed on 10.8.2017 and the Court was busy in another judicial work, this witness could not be examined on 3.8.2017. On 10.8.2017 a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner informing the Court that he had moved Transfer Petition (Cr.) No. 13/2017 before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court for transfer of the case to any other Court of CBI (AHD Scam). Ranchi. Witness Sunil Kumar was present in the Court and prayed to give evidence. Defence counsel did not want to examine due to Transfer Petition filed before the Hon'ble Court. Therefore, witness Sunil Kumar was examined, cross-examined and discharged as Court witness. 17. The chronology of dates and events in the conduct of the trial in the instant case pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court contained in judgment dated 8.5.2017, as noted above from the pleadings on record and the status report furnished by the learned trial Court, show that 10 defence witnesses had already been examined on behalf of the petitioner by 21.7.2017. There is no whisper that the learned trial Court tried to demoralize any of these defence witnesses. It further appears that on 29.7.2017 when the defence witness Sunil Kumar did not appear despite receipt of summons dated 17.7.2017 and 28.7.2017, the learned Court took objection to his non-appearance and directed him to appear on 10.8.2017 for his examination as defence witness while also directing withholding of his salary by the Government of Bihar. It is pertinent to note here that the said Sunil Kumar, DGP, Police Academy, Patna did not raise any grievance against the order of withholding of his salary. On 3.8.2017 two witnesses of the petitioner namely Mukund Prasad and Kanhaiya Kumar were to be examined. It is pertinent to note here that the said Sunil Kumar, DGP, Police Academy, Patna did not raise any grievance against the order of withholding of his salary. On 3.8.2017 two witnesses of the petitioner namely Mukund Prasad and Kanhaiya Kumar were to be examined. Since Sunil Kumar had also come to depose as defence witness in RC No. 68A/96 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI-I, AHD Scam, Ranchi, his attendance was also filed on behalf of the petitioner along with other two witnesses. An application for his examination was also filed on 3.8.2017 before the learned Court of Special Judge, CBI-VII (AHD Scam), Ranchi. It is apparent that amongst the two witnesses scheduled to be examined on 3.8.2017 on behalf of the petitioner, defence witness Mukund Prasad was duly examined and discharged as DW-11 while the defence did not examine the other witness Kanhaiya Kumar. There was no complaint in relation to examination of these two witnesses on behalf of the petitioner even on the said date. However, the learned Court made an endorsement on the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner on 3.8.2017 containing the prayer for examination of Sunil Kumar that since the date of his examination was fixed as 10.8.2017 and that the learned Court was busy in other judicial work, therefore, his evidence could not be recorded on that date. Therefore, the prayer for examination of Sunil Kumar on 3.8.2017 as defence witness was not allowed by the learned Court. There was no occasion for the witness Sunil Kumar to be called in the witness box, therefore, for his examination on the said date. The contention of the learned counsel for the CBI also merits acceptance that prior notice for examination of a witness to the learned Public Prosecutor is essential to enable the Public Prosecutor to come prepared for his cross-examination. The examination of Sunil Kumar was already fixed for 10.8.2017 and in that way the Public Prosecutor for CBI also did not have enough prior notice of the examination of witness Sunil Kumar on 3.8.2017 when such an application was moved. Therefore, the witness Sunil Kumar could not have entered into the witness box for his examination. The allegation of the petitioner that the learned trial Court after recording certain particulars relating to the name, father's name, nationality, religion, age, police station, etc. Therefore, the witness Sunil Kumar could not have entered into the witness box for his examination. The allegation of the petitioner that the learned trial Court after recording certain particulars relating to the name, father's name, nationality, religion, age, police station, etc. and whether he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or not of witness Sunil Kumar got annoyed with his reply and tore the statements recorded, has been categorically denied by the respondent-CBI as false and misleading in their counter-affidavit. Therefore, in absence of permission from the trial Court to appear as a witness, such an assertion cannot have any sanctity in law. On the other hand, in the wake of specific denials on the part of the cm, no findings can be rendered on such a disputed question of fact. Moreover, in view of Sections 276 and 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the evidence of a witness in a trial before a Court of Sessions so taken down and signed by the Presiding Judge can only form part of the record. There are no averments to the effect that such evidence of the witness Sunil Kumar was signed by the learned Presiding Judge after being read over to him in the presence of the accused to form part of the record. Therefore, the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance. 18. Petitioner however seems to have been offended by the refusal of the learned trial Court of examination of the defence witness Sunil Kumar on 3.8.2017 in such circumstances. It appears that thereafter an application was filed on 4.8.2017 (Annexure-2) before the said Court that the case be adjourned for four weeks to enable him to move the Hon'ble High Court for transfer of the case to any other competent Court. On 10.8.2017 petitioner again moved a petition for adjournment refusing to examine any defence witness before the learned Court on the same ground that it had moved a transfer petition before this Court. However, the said witness Sunil Kumar was present in the Court and had filed attendance. As appears from the order-sheet dated 10.8.2017, witness Sunil Kumar also made a prayer to give evidence in the case. The learned trial Court acceded to his prayer and examined him as Court witness No. 1. However, the said witness Sunil Kumar was present in the Court and had filed attendance. As appears from the order-sheet dated 10.8.2017, witness Sunil Kumar also made a prayer to give evidence in the case. The learned trial Court acceded to his prayer and examined him as Court witness No. 1. The petition moved for time however was kept on record and the case was adjourned for 11.8.2017 for defence witness. The sequence of events therefore goes to show that the entire apprehension of the petitioner that the trial may not be conducted in a fair and impartial manner is woven around the non-examination or examination of one defence witness Sunil Kumar on these dates. 19. Petitioner has taken umbrage to the order of the learned trial Court dated 29.7.2017 whereby it had directed stoppage of salary of the witness Sunil Kumar, IPS, DGP, Police Academy, Patna while directing his appearance as a defence witness on 10.8.2017. In this regard, it is proper to rely upon the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shailendra Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (1) East Cr C 81 (SC) : (2002) 1 SCC 655 regarding the duty of the Sessions Judge to take appropriate action including issuance of bailable/non-bailable warrants, as the case may be, if there is any failure on the part of the witness to remain present. Para-9 of the report is quoted hereunder: "9. In our view, in a murder trial it is sordid and repulsive matter that without informing the police station officer-in-charge, the matters are proceeded by the Court and by the APP and tried to be disposed of as if the prosecution has not led any evidence. From the facts stated above, it appears that the accused wants to frustrate the prosecution by unjustified means and it appears that by one way or the other the Additional Sessions Judge as well as the APP have not taken any interest in discharge of their duties. It was the duty of the Sessions Judge to issue summons to the Investigating Officer if he failed to remain present at the time of trial of the case. The presence of Investigating Officer at the time of trial is must. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present. It was the duty of the Sessions Judge to issue summons to the Investigating Officer if he failed to remain present at the time of trial of the case. The presence of Investigating Officer at the time of trial is must. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present. If there is failure on the part of any witness to remain present, it is the duty of the Court to take appropriate action including issuance of bailable/non-bailable warrants as the case may be. It should be well understood the prosecution cannot be frustrated by such methods and victims of the crime cannot be left in a lurch." (Emphasis supplied) 20. Moreover, recourse to stoppage of salary of the witness Sunil Kumar in the wake of his non-appearance on two dates despite receipt of summons dated 17.7.2017 and 28.7.2017 cannot be termed as without the backing of law. The learned Division Bench of this Court while deciding a Criminal Appeal in the case of Paresh Mandal and Another vs. Sanjay Mondal and Others, 2013 (4) JLJR 157 had taken serious note of failure of witness and the Investigating Officer to be present at the time of trial. After relying upon para-9 of the report in the case of Shailendra Kumar (supra), further went on to observe as under: "Thus: (a) It is a duty of the trial Court to inform the Investigating Officer, before it starts taking evidence. (b) It is a duty of Investigating Officer to remain present before the trial Court. (c) It is a duty of the Investigating Officer to bring prosecution witnesses to the Court. (d) It is a duty of Sessions Judge to secure presence of witnesses and by summons if they are not, remaining present, bailable and then non-bailable warrant can be issued. (e) Disposal of appeal does not mean, disposal for statistical purposes, but effective and real disposal to achieve the object of any trial. (f) Even the trial Court can pass an order to stop the payment of salary or pension of Investigating Officer or Doctor or other Government Officers, who are avoiding to give evidence in Court after summons are issued for their presence. It is high time for the Judges of the trial Court to learn the art of securing presence of crucial prosecution witnesses. It is high time for the Judges of the trial Court to learn the art of securing presence of crucial prosecution witnesses. No order of acquittal shall be passed by the trial Court for want of evidence of Investigating Officer or Doctor or other Government Officer if these witnesses are alive and getting salary or pension. The Court has all the power to stop the payment of salary or pension to them, if they are avoiding the Court: In view of the aforesaid decision, it was the duty of the trial Court to arrive at a just decision. The criminal Court is an effective instrument for dispensing the justice and the Presiding Judge must cease to be a silent spectator or a mere evidence recording machine........" (Emphasis supplied) (21) We also direct the Registry of this Court to circulate copy of this decision to all the Judges of Jharkhand in the District Courts as well as in the Subordinate Courts, so as to avoid similar errors and to avoid multifariousness of proceedings." 21. In the factual canvass of the case, the order of the learned trial Court cannot be termed as wholly unwarranted. More so, in view of the specific directions issued as above to all the Judges of Jharkhand in the District Courts as well as in the Subordinate Courts at para-21 of the judgment quoted above as well. 22. It would also not be out of context to mention here that apart from there being no other plausible grounds for the petitioner to apprehend lack of fair trial in this particular case earlier also when 10 of his defence witnesses were examined, the same petitioner is facing trial in another criminal case being RC No. 38A/96 arising out of the same Fodder Scam before the same Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi where no instances of such apprehension have been reported or pleaded by the petitioner. The law with regard to transfer of cases is well settled by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court in the case of Gurucharan Dass Chadha vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 1418 had opined that a case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. A petitioner is not required to demonstrate that the justice will inevitably fail. The Apex Court in the case of Gurucharan Dass Chadha vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 1418 had opined that a case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. A petitioner is not required to demonstrate that the justice will inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged. One of the principles of administration of justice is that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. However, a mere allegation that there is, apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice. The Court has further to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. To judge the reasonableness of the apprehension the state of the mind of the person who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension. 23. In the case of Abdul Nazar Madani vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2000 (3) East Cr C 894 (SC) : (2000) 6 SCC 204 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises. No universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioner alone who approached the Court on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society. 24. Free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society. 24. Free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice as has also been held in the case of Captain Amarinder Singh vs. Parkash Singh Badal and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 260 by the Apex Court. 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejecting the prayer for transfer of Criminal Trial in RC No. 20A/96 in the case of the same petitioner in the judgment reported in (2013) 8 SCC 593 has held as under: "13. Independence of judiciary is the basic feature of the Constitution. It demands that a Judge who presides over the trial, the Public Prosecutor who presents the case on behalf of the State and the lawyer vis-a-vis amicus curiae who represents the accused must work together in harmony in the public interest of justice uninfluenced by the personality of the accused or those managing the affairs of the State. They must ensure that their working does not lead to creation of conflict between justice and jurisprudence. A person whether he is a judicial officer or a Public Prosecutor or a lawyer defending the accused should always uphold the dignity of their high office with a full sense of responsibility and see that its value in no circumstances gets devalued. The public interest demands that the trial should be conducted in a fair manner and the administration of justice would be fair and independent." 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Usmangani Adambhai Vahora vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2016 (2) East Cr C 85 (SC) : AIR 2016 SC 336 also relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, has held as under:- "12. In the instant case, we are disposed to think that apprehension that has been stated is absolutely mercurial and cannot remotely be stated by be reasonable. The learned Single Judge has taken an exception to the remarks given by the learned trial Judge and also opined about non-examination of any witness by him. As far as the first aspect is concerned, no exception can be taken to it. The learned Single Judge has taken an exception to the remarks given by the learned trial Judge and also opined about non-examination of any witness by him. As far as the first aspect is concerned, no exception can be taken to it. The learned Sessions Judge, while hearing the application for transfer of the case, called for remarks of the learned trial Judge and in such a situation, he is required to give a reply and that he has done. He is not expected to accept the allegations made as regards his conduct and more so while nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the same. The High Court could not have deduced that he should have declined to conduct the trial. This kind of observation is absolute impermissible in law, for there is no acceptable reason on the part of the learned trial Judge to show his disinclination. Solely because an accused has filed an application for transfer, he is not required to express his disinclination. He is required under law to do his duty. He has to perform his duty and not to succumb to the pressure put by the accused by making callous allegations. He is not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to such allegations and recuse himself from the case. If this can be the foundation to transfer a case, it will bring anarchy in the adjudicatory process. The unscrupulous litigants will indulge themselves in Court hunting. If they are allowed such room, they do not have to face the trial before a Court in which they do not feel comfortable. The High Court has gravely erred in this regard. So far as the non-examination of the witnesses is concerned, as the factual score would un-curtain, the matter had travelled to the High Court in revision assailing the order passed under Section 319 Cr. PC. Be that as it may, the High Court has• not adverted to the issue who was seeking adjournment and what was the role of the learned trial Judge. Grant of adjournment could have been dealt with by the High Court in a different manner. It has to be borne in mind that a Judge who discharges his duty is bound to commit errors. The same have to be rectified. The accused has never moved the superior Court seeking its intervention for speedy trial. Grant of adjournment could have been dealt with by the High Court in a different manner. It has to be borne in mind that a Judge who discharges his duty is bound to commit errors. The same have to be rectified. The accused has never moved the superior Court seeking its intervention for speedy trial. The High Court has innovated a new kind of approach to transfer the case. The High Court should have kept in view the principles stated in K.P. Tiwari vs. State of M.P. which are to the following effect:- "..........It has also to be remembered that the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under a psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks-more correctly up to their nostrils. They do not have the benefit of a detached atmosphere of the higher Courts to think coolly and decide patiently. Every error, however gross it may look, should not, therefore, be attributed to improper motive." 27. Their Lordships have observed that the learned trial Court is required under law to do its duty. He has to perform his duty and not to succumb to the pressure put by the accused by making callous allegations. He is not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to such allegations and recuse himself from the case. If this can be the foundation to transfer a case, it will bring anarchy in the adjudicatory process. It has to be borne in mind that a Judge who discharges his duty is bound to commit errors. The same have to be rectified. In the facts of the instant case though the petitioner had also urged that his application for exemption under Section 317 of the Cr. PC was not accepted, but it is also evident from the facts and circumstances of the case noted above that since the evidence of the petitioner was going on, he had been asked to be present on the dates on which his defence witnesses were to be examined. Reference, may be made to the provisions of Section 273 under Chapter-XXIII of the Criminal Procedure Code as well. Petitioner has, however, never raised any challenge to such an order relating to his physical presence. Reference, may be made to the provisions of Section 273 under Chapter-XXIII of the Criminal Procedure Code as well. Petitioner has, however, never raised any challenge to such an order relating to his physical presence. The witness Sunil Kumar in respect of whose examination the petitioner has raised an apprehension of lack of fair trial, has not raised any grievance relating to the order dated 29.7.2017 when his salary was directed to be withheld and was directed to appear on 10.8.2017 for his examination. The learned trial Court had good and sufficient reason• to refuse examination of this witness on 3.8.2017 as not only his examination was fixed for 10.8.2017, but there were other, judicial works to be discharged by the Court and moreover the learned Public Prosecutor for the C.B.I. also did not have sufficient notice of his examination. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the passage quoted above, it has also to be remembered that the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under a psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks-more correctly up to their nostrils. They do not have the benefit of a detached atmosphere of the higher Courts to think coolly and decide patiently. Every error, however gross it may look, should not, therefore, be attributed to improper motive. The trial Court Judge is also under a mandate to conclude the trial expeditiously as per the directions of the Apex Court in Cr. Appeal No. 394/2017 in the case of the same petitioner. 28. Petitioner had also alleged that his attendant was directed to go out of the Court. However, during course of arguments a pointed query was put to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as to how could the learned Court be attributed the knowledge as to which of the persons present in the courtroom was an Attendant of the accused petitioner amongst whole lot of persons present in the courtroom. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court on this query. Moreover, learned counsel for the CBI has on the basis of the averments made in their counter-affidavit also refuted such an allegation and submitted that several party workers and leaders usually assemble in the Court on such occasions and also occupy seats earmarked for Advocates. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court on this query. Moreover, learned counsel for the CBI has on the basis of the averments made in their counter-affidavit also refuted such an allegation and submitted that several party workers and leaders usually assemble in the Court on such occasions and also occupy seats earmarked for Advocates. In such circumstances the learned trial Court has to make some observation which is not directed towards an individual. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner also, therefore, is not of much substance. 29. In view of the aforesaid discussions made the judgment relied upon by the senior counsel for the petitioner of Patna High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Choudhary (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case. 30. The analysis of the entire facts and circumstances noted above in the light of the salutary principles laid down by the Apex Court on the law relating to transfer of case, this Court is not satisfied that the petitioner has been able to make out a reasonable apprehension that the trial may not be conducted in a fair and impartial manner before the learned Court of Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi. Therefore, the prayer made for transfer of the case to any other Court cannot be allowed. 31. However, it is to be observed that in case a request is made on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial Court for recalling of the witness Sunil Kumar for examination, the learned trial Court would consider the request in accordance with law keeping into account that the said witness could not be examined on behalf of the petitioner on 10.8.2017 when he was examined as a Court witness and discharged. 32. The instant petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.