ORDER 1. This transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife to transfer Sessions Case No. 17 of 2015, in which charge sheet was filed against accused-respondent No(s). 2 to 4 under Sections 498A, 328, 504 and 506 read with Section 114 I.P.C. and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, from Alwar, Rajasthan, to the District and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. 2. We have heard Mr. Partha Sil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State and Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No(s). 2 to 4. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State of Rajasthan objections have been raised by it for transfer of entire Sessions Case from the State of Rajasthan to the State of Gujarat by contending that the case involves examination of as many as 12 witnesses including official witness and it would be difficult for the State to conduct effective trial if the case is transferred to the State of Gujarat, apart from the extra burden of huge expenses on the State exchequer. 4. Mr. Partha Sil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife has drawn our attention to the medical certificate issued by the Specialist Panel Committee, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. From the perusal of the said Report, it is seen that the petitioner-victim is so seriously incapacitated that she is not even in a position to take solid food through her mouth. The petitioner had to undergo a surgical operation to create an opening in the abdominal wall and the small intestine known as jejunostomy and is fed through a tube known as jejunostomy tube inserted into the opening. The petitioner is receiving treatment free of cost at Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad (Annexure P/ 8 to the T.P. paper book). 5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of incapacitation of the victim, she cannot travel to Alwar, Rajasthan, to give her evidence. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to section 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which is set out herein-below for convenience: " 284. When attendance of witness may be dispensed with and commission issued. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to section 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which is set out herein-below for convenience: " 284. When attendance of witness may be dispensed with and commission issued. (1) Whenever, in the course of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Court of Magistrate that the examination of a witness is necessary for the ends of justice, and that the attendance of such witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable, the Court or Magistrate may dispense with such attendance and may issue a commission for the examination of the witness in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that where the examination of the President or the Vice-President of India or the Governor of a State or the Administrator of a Union Territory as a witness is necessary for the ends of justice, a commission shall be issued for the examination of such a witness. (2) The Court may, when issuing a commission for the examination of a witness for the prosecution direct that such amount as the Court considers reasonable to meet the expenses of the accused including the pleader's fees, be paid by the prosecution. 7. section 285 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides that if the witness is within territories to which the Code of Criminal Procedure extends, the commission is to be directed to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate, as the case might be, within whose local jurisdiction the witness is to be found. "285. Commission to whom to be issued. (1) If the witness is within the territories to which this Code extends, the commission shall be directed to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be, within whose local jurisdiction the witness is to be found." 8. The examination of the petitioner, who is victim is undoubtedly necessary for the ends of Justice. It is almost impossible to procure the attendance of the petitioner who is completely bed ridden and undergoing treatment, in the Court of Additional Sessions Court 3 at Alwar in Rajasthan. Moreover, as observed above, the petitioner is undergoing treatment at Ahmedabad free of cost. 9. It is almost impossible to procure the attendance of the petitioner who is completely bed ridden and undergoing treatment, in the Court of Additional Sessions Court 3 at Alwar in Rajasthan. Moreover, as observed above, the petitioner is undergoing treatment at Ahmedabad free of cost. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the medical condition of the petitioner, who is the victim, a commission may be issued for her examination under section 284 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 10. Having regard to the condition of the victim-Dimple Soni, we deem it appropriate to issue commission, as per section 286 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, within whose jurisdiction the victim Dimple Soni is to be found at present. Since the victim is at Ahmedabad, the commission shall be issued to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and/ or Chief Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over Ahmedabad. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/ Chief Judicial Magistrate or such Metropolitan/ Judicial Magistrate as may be appointed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/ Chief Judicial Magistrate in this behalf shall issue summons and shall take down the evidence of the victim Dimple Soni in the same manner and may for this purpose exercise the same power as in trials of warrant cases under this Code. 11. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over Ahmedabad or any other Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate as nominated by him shall examine the victim-Dimple Soni at the place where she is upon notice to all the parties concerned intimating the date and time of examination. Respondent No(s). 2 to 4 and their counsel appearing for them shall cooperate with the examination of the victim by Commission. 12. The transfer petition is accordingly disposed of. 13. The respondent-State of Rajasthan and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall bear their own expenses. However, the travelling expenses of the concerned magistrate to the place of residence of the victim-Dimple Soni and other incidental expenses shall be borne by the State of Rajasthan.