JUDGMENT : Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. The accused-petitioners have filed this application under Section 407 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to transfer Sessions Case No.41/2005 presently pending before Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases) Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur to any other competent court as petitioners feel that they would not get a fair and impartial trial at the hand of present Presiding Officer of the aforesaid Court as revealed from his alleged conduct and behaviour towards petitioners soon after he assumed the charge of the Court. 2. As per the averments made in the transfer application it is shown that the aforesaid matter for offence under Sections 4-B and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act is pending against them for last 24 years and it is pending before the aforesaid Court for last 13 years and presently it is fixed for final hearing. It is the case of petitioners that evidence of PW60-Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, a Police Officer, was closed by the Court as he failed to appear for his cross-examination despite several opportunities were granted to him but when the present Presiding Officer assumed the charge of the Court he asked the Public Prosecutor to move an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the aforesaid witness and at the instance of the Presiding Officer such application was filed and the same was allowed vide order dated 21.11.2015 and PW60 was recalled and ultimately his examination was completed. It is further the case of petitioners that cost of Rs.2,000/- was imposed upon the petitioners although time was sought by them as their counsel was ill and could not appear before the Court on a particular date which also shows aggressive behaviour of the officer towards them. It has further been averred by the petitioners in the application that during the course of hearing of the matter some comments were made by the officer as quoted in the application which also shows hostile attitude and behaviour of the officer towards petitioners and as a result thereof they are apprehending that they would not get fair and impartial trial from the present Presiding Officer and they have lost complete faith in him. 3. Copy of the application was sent to the concerned Presiding Officer and his comments were sought which have been duly furnished. 4. 3. Copy of the application was sent to the concerned Presiding Officer and his comments were sought which have been duly furnished. 4. It is to be noted that although along with the petition copy of some of the orders passed by the Court below have been filed but in support of the allegations made against the Presiding Officer and the apprehension expressed, affidavit of any of the petitioners has not been filed. It is further to be noted that an application under Section 408 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to transfer the case to some other Court was filed by the petitioners before District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur but the same was dismissed vide order dated 6.2.2016. It is pertinent to note that in support of the application filed before the Sessions Judge affidavits of all the petitioners were filed. It is also shown that in the present petition some new grounds have been taken, which were not available at the time when application was filed before the Sessions Judge. 5. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and the material made available on record as well as the comments of the concerned Presiding Officer and more particularly looking to the fact that in support of the allegations made and apprehension shown neither affidavit of any of the petitioners nor any other documentary evidence has been filed, I do not find it a fit case in which discretion conferred under Section 407 Cr.P.C. upon this Court is to be exercised. Although, evidence of PW60 was closed by the previous Presiding Officer of the Court as the witness failed to appear for his further cross-examination despite several opportunities were granted to him but once the application under Section 311 was allowed and that order was not challenged by the petitioners, mere passing of a judicial order in accordance with law cannot be a ground of apprehension as shown by the petitioners. Similarly, in a case which is pending for last 24 years cost was imposed by the Court upon petitioners despite the fact that their counsel could not appear before the Court due to his illness, cannot be a good ground to doubt the fairness and impartiality of a judicial officer. Similarly, in a case which is pending for last 24 years cost was imposed by the Court upon petitioners despite the fact that their counsel could not appear before the Court due to his illness, cannot be a good ground to doubt the fairness and impartiality of a judicial officer. So far as the comments as quoted by the petitioners in para 18 of the petition are concerned, in absence of the date on which these comments were made and more particularly in absence of affidavit of a person, including the petitioners, in whose presence such comments were made, reliance cannot be made upon such claim and it cannot be a ground to doubt the fairness and impartiality on an officer. In his comments the Presiding Officer of the Court has said that the present application has been made only with an oblique motive to delay the trial. Consequently, the petition being meritless is, hereby, dismissed.