JUDGMENT : R. Subhash Reddy, J. This Special Civil Application is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner who is accused in Special Case (POSCO) No. 14 of 2017 pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar which is registered for the offences punishable under section 376(2)(f)(i)(n), 328, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, under sections 4, 5(1), 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act. 2. The reliefs as prayed in the prayer portion of the petition reads as under :- "27(i) To issue any appropriate writ of certiorari, mandamus or any kind of appropriate writ-order in order to correct the record and to take appropriate action in the facts and circumstances of this case against Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar District in POSCO Case No.14 of 2017 for violation of principles of natural justice, for exceeding the jurisdiction in recording the evidence, for being party of the prosecution and playing bias and partition role, for violating the statutory provisions of the concerned law and for violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner during conducing the trial. (ii) The note written by presiding officer Kum. R.M. Vora against the advocate for the petitioner in the record of the case on 10.10.2017 and on 17.05.2018 kindly be deleted under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other and further relief/s which the Hon'ble Court deems it just and fit in the interest of justice." 3. The petition is filed mainly by making allegation as contained in paragraph nos.4,5,6,9 and 10. The said paragraphs, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition reads as under :- "(4) The trial of the above case commenced before the respondent no.1 herein the Additional Sessions Judge, Kumari R.M. Vohra at Gandhinagar. Accordingly, the petitioner was instructed by the Hon'ble Additional Sessions Court, Gandhiangar to keep the advocate present on 18.09.2017 and the advocate for the petitioner remained present before the Court, the summons was issued to the prosecutrix and the matter was kept on 28.09.2017 for the evidence of the prosecutrix, but she did not remain present on that day, though the summons had already been served to her and the matter was adjourned for 06.10.2017. (5) On 06.10.2017, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kumari R.M. Vohra recorded the deposition i.e. the examination in chief of the prosecutrix. It is pertinent to note that the procedure adopted by the learned Additional Sessions is quite strange and unknown to the law. It is the rule of Criminal Jurisprudence that all the evidence against the accused must be taken in his presence as per Section 273 of Cr.P.C. and POSCO Act section 36. In this case, the entire evidence against the petitioner accused has been recorded in his absence. On drawing the attention of the Presiding Officer on these mandatory provisions, the photo affixed on the charge sheet is shown to witness from at a distance by sitting on chair by the presiding Officer and presiding Officer affirmatively of her and without waiting for the reply of the witness the Presiding Officer affirmatively of her own recorded the photo identity. (6) During the examination in chief of the prosecutrix, the Presiding Officer conducted the case against the settled principles of law. The Presiding Officer has not waited to recorded the evidence which would come from the mouth of the prosecutrix but she herself has taken down and dictated from her own mouth the main ingredients of law from the story of prosecution and informed the prosecutrix to say like this if someone asks about it, as stated in para 7,8 and 10 of the deposition of the complainant which is annexed herewith as Annexure-"A". Thus during the trial the Presiding Officer, has violated the principles of natural justice and she herself has become a party to the prosecution and played partial and bias role against the petitioner. Inspite of several objections by the Advocate for the petitioner, the Presiding Officer did not allow him to speak any thing and lastly the Presiding Officer became very angry and in an insulting language words, she by physical expressions compelled the advocate for the defence, not to raise any objection and compelled to sit down. By such an insulting behaviour of the presiding officer, the advocate for the petitioner was hurted and was shocked and kept silent during the chief examination. The matter adjourned for 10.10.2017. (9) First of all as soon as the question is asked to the witness, presiding officer Kum. Rm. By such an insulting behaviour of the presiding officer, the advocate for the petitioner was hurted and was shocked and kept silent during the chief examination. The matter adjourned for 10.10.2017. (9) First of all as soon as the question is asked to the witness, presiding officer Kum. Rm. Vora, verifying the question "how and why this question is asked for what purpose, what do you understand by this question?" and after number of pleas and queries, she was of her own dictating evidence, something which she wished to write and she used to keep in abeyance most of the questions of facts and Others which are very much important for the defence. This way the petitioner is deprived of his constitutional rights of defence in the criminal trial. It is the violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India equality before the Court of law. It is also the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India the right of fair criminal trial. It is quite and absolute violation of the principles of natural justice by the Presiding Officer while conducting the criminal trial. The presiding officer has not maintained the jurisdiction and exceeded the jurisdiction of the court during trial. (10) The conduct and behaviour of learned Additional Sessions Judge Kum. R.M. Vohra is bias and partial and she is found to be very right in her trend for the unknown reasons. On opposing and objecting by the advocate such a serious kind of violation of law, she postponed the cross examination with dictating a note against the advocate for the petitioner after para 32 of the deposition of witness Annexure-A and adjourned the matter for 25.10.2017. The advocate for the petitioner was severely shocked and stressed and hurted by the conduct of the learned presiding officer Kum. R.M. Vora. Thus, it is never possible that the real justice can be rendered by concerned court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Kum. R.M. Vora." 4. At the first instance, while rejecting the grant of bail, this Court has directed for expeditious disposal of the case. Order dated 21.08.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.18224 of 2017 reads as under :- "Learned advocate Mr. R.M. Vora." 4. At the first instance, while rejecting the grant of bail, this Court has directed for expeditious disposal of the case. Order dated 21.08.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.18224 of 2017 reads as under :- "Learned advocate Mr. N.B. Tiwari for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this application with liberty to move fresh bail application after evidence/deposition of prosecutrix/victim girl is recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. In light of the above, permission, as sought for, is granted. The application stands disposed of as withdrawn with above liberty. Rule is discharged. However, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to expedite process of hearing and framing of charge, expedite the trial and record deposition of the victim girl as early as possible but, not later than four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 5. After commencement of trial, at the first instance, the petitioner herein has filed application for transfer, before the learned Principal District Judge on similar grounds, same was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed Special Criminal Application (Transfer) No.8568 of 2017, which is also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 13.11.2017, by considering the plea of the petitioner elaborately. The petitioner earlier filed Special Criminal Application No.4837 of 2018 before this Court, same was permitted to be withdrawn by granting liberty to file appropriate application before appropriate forum. Thereafter, present writ petition is filed with the similar prayers as sought in Special Criminal Application No.4837 of 2018. 6. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that conduct of the Presiding Officer in recording evidence is not fair and same is in violation of rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that as much as, earlier petition was withdrawn by seeking liberty to approach appropriate forum, as such, this petition is maintainable for grant of relief as prayed for. It is submitted that as much as, earlier petition was withdrawn by seeking liberty to approach appropriate forum, as such, this petition is maintainable for grant of relief as prayed for. In support of his argument that when subordinate Courts/Tribunals are committing errors in exercise of jurisdiction, it is always for this Court to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing appropriate writ, placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob v/s. K. S. Radhakrishnan reported in, (1964) AIR SC 477 and also in support of his argument that where rights of the persons have been seriously infringed, this Court can extend its hand under Article 226 of the Constitution, where there is no adequate and sufficient remedy available to such persons, and relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Indian Sugar Mills Association v/s. Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh Labour Department reported in, 1951 AIR Allahabad 1. 7. The reliefs sought in the petition, which are already extracted above, are totally misconceived. It is to be noticed that the case is registered against the petitioner, who was giving tuition to the girls, for the offences punishable under sections 376(2)(f)(i)(n), 328, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, sections 4, 5(1), 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act. There is a direction of this Court for expeditious completion of the trial vide order dated 21.08.2017. After the trial has commenced, by pointing out procedural irregularities in conducting the trial, the petitioner has filed application before the learned Principal District Judge, which was dismissed on the ground that there is only one Designated Court to deal with the cases arising out of POCSO Act. By raising similar allegations, Special Criminal Application (Transfer) No.8568 of 2017 is filed, which is dismissed by this Court on merits. Said judgment has become final. Thereafter, Special Civil Application No.4837 of 2018 was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was permitted to be withdrawn by granting liberty only to approach appropriate forum. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has again filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Said judgment has become final. Thereafter, Special Civil Application No.4837 of 2018 was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was permitted to be withdrawn by granting liberty only to approach appropriate forum. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has again filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Further from the material placed on record, we do not find any merit in this petition which would support the case of the petitioner that his rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India are infringed. In the judgment in the case of Syed Yakoob v/s. K.S. Radhakrishnan, (1964) AIR SC 477, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that writ of Certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by the inferior courts or tribunals. It is also held in the said judgment that such writ can be issued where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. The proposition laid down in the aforesaid judgment would not render assistance to the case of the petitioner having regard to facts of the case on hand. 9. Even in the judgment in the case of Indian Sugar Mills Association v/s. Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh Labour Department, (1951) AIR Allahabad 1, the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court while considering the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India has held in paragraph no.11 as under :- "11. Those remarks are with reference to a suit. They are much more applicable to proceedings under Art. 226 which are of a summary and of a coercive nature without providing for a normal trial or a right of appeal except in those cases where a substantial question of interpretation of the constitution arises. This Court is being flooded with applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution which is seriously affecting the normal work of the Court. We feel that the time has come when we may point out that Art. 226 of the Constitution was not intended to provide an alternative method of redress to the normal process of a decision in an action brought in the usual courts established by law. We feel that the time has come when we may point out that Art. 226 of the Constitution was not intended to provide an alternative method of redress to the normal process of a decision in an action brought in the usual courts established by law. The powers under this article should be sparingly used and only in those clear cases where the rights of a person have been seriously infringed and he has no other adequate and specific remedy available to him." We fail to understand how the above said judgments supports the case of the petitioner having regard to facts of the case on hand. 10. It is also to be noticed that this petition is filed by making Presiding Officer as party - 1st respondent and State of Gujarat as 2nd respondent. The allegations are made against the Presiding Officer by name. It is relevant to notice the provision under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Section 3 of the said Act reads as under :- "3. Additional protection to Judges (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being and subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (2), no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or functions." 11. Further, it is to be noticed that for the offences which are registered under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Chapter VIII contemplates special procedure and powers of the Special Courts and recording of evidence. As per procedure contemplated under Chapter VIII, the Special Court has to permit frequent breaks for the child during trial by creating child friendly atmosphere and Special Court shall ensure that the child is not called repeatedly to testify in the Court. Further, it is the duty of the Special Court that it shall not permit aggressive questioning and ensure that dignity of the child is maintained at all times during trial. Further, it is the duty of the Special Court that it shall not permit aggressive questioning and ensure that dignity of the child is maintained at all times during trial. Having regard to special procedure, as contemplated under Chapter VIII of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, we do not find any merit in this petition for grant of any reliefs as prayed for. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. 13. After the petition is dismissed at the stage of admission, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner made a oral request for grant of leave to approach Hon'ble Supreme Court. Having regard to issue involved in the matter, we are of the view that no important question of law of general importance arise for consideration, so as to accede to such request as prayed for, for grant of leave. Accordingly, the oral request is rejected.