Leave granted.
We feel that the High Court has improperly exercised a jurisdiction by transferring one case from the court of Principal Sessions Judge to that of the Additional Sessions Judge without any ostensible reasons at all. A petition was moved by the accused in a murder case to have his case transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge even before the trial in the case was started before the court of the Principal Sessions Judge. When the High Court was not able to find out any good ground for transferring the case it countenanced a very vague and omnibus ground by observing the following:
"It is the duty of the Court to see that the seeker of justice get fair and impartial trial.
Apprehension in the mind of the accused makes a compartment that he will get fair justice. Such apprehension must be dispelled so far as possible by the Court, depending upon the attending facts and circumstances of the particular case." *
The trial court need not exercise to dispel any feigned apprehension in the mind of a litigant. The respondent - accused says that he entertained an apprehension that impartial trial cannot be obtained in the court of Principal Sessions Judge on two grounds. One is that the public prosecutor moved an application that the accused - respondent should be brought to the court handcuffed from the prison and that the said application was not disposed of by the Principal Sessions Judge. Second is that a counsel engaged by the aggrieved private person of the deceased's party was allowed to assist the prosecution. It must be pointed out that even before the trial started, even before the court could frame a charge against the accused, he started entertaining apprehension that there would be no fair trial on the aforesaid apparently fragile and untenable grounds.It is unfortunate that the High Court had chosen to order transfer of a case from the file of one Sessions Judge to that of another Sessions Judge of the same sessions division situated in the same complex merely because a party wished that his case should go out of that particular court.
An order granting such transfer on the mere asking would result in demoralising the trial courts which the High Courts should desist from doing. Merely because a party in the garb of "a seeker of justice" approached the High Court is not a proper reason for mechanically ordering the transfer of such case. Though initially we thought that since it was the High Court which ordered transfer of the case we need not interfere while exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution.
But after considering all apsects we feel that unless we express strongly in this matter the impugned order will pave the way for serious erosion of credibility of the trial courts.
In the result we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The trial in the particular case will be held before the Principal Sessions Judge unless he on his own administrative or other valid reasons chooses to do otherwise.