( 1 ) HEARD Sri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel representing the petitioners (A-1 and a-2), Smt. K. Sesha Rajyam, learned Public prosecutor and Sri K. Chaitanya, learned counsel representing the de facto complainant, 2nd respondent herein.

( 2 ) THE criminal petition is filed to quash the orders of transfer dated 22-2-2002 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, visakhapatnam transferring S. C. No. 29/2001 from the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, anakapalle to the file of the Assistant Sessions judge, Chodavaram. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: the 2nd respondent, who is the wife of the 2nd petitioner and daughter-in-law of the 1st petitioner lodged a report dated 27-5-2000 with the S. H. O. , Town Police station, Anakapalle and on the basis of the said report a case in Cr. No. 109/2000 was registered for the offence u/sec. 498-A and 307r / w 34, IPC. After investigation the police filed the charge-sheet on 25-10-2000. It is stated that the learned Assistant Sessions judge, Anakapalle took up the case on file after committal as S. C. No. 29/2001 and issued summons to the petitioners. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge gave schedule for trial from 1-3-2002. It is also stated that the petitioner engaged a local senior advocate by paying fee and were ready to face trial. It is further stated that the learned district and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam passed the order dated 22-2-2002 withdrawing the case in S. C No. 29/2001 from the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, anakapalle transferring the case to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, chodavaram. It is also stated that the transferring the said case is not on administrative grounds as can be seen from the order dated 22-2-2002. It is only on an application filed by the de facto complainant dated 18-2-2002. It was also stated that the petitioners are not aware of the said application and no notice was given to the petitioners and hence the order of transfer is unjust and violative of the principles of natural justice.

( 3 ) SRI E. V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel representing the petitioners (A-1 and A-2) had taken me through the impugned order and had pointed out that after referring to the application only the learned District and sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam had exercised the powers conferred u/sec. 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the "code" ). The learned counsel also submitted that from the very nature of the order it cannot be said to be on administrative grounds and it being a judicial order the said order cannot be an order passed on judicial side by the learned District and Sessions judge without issuing notice to the petitioners, who are really the effective parties if any transfer of the case is made. The learned counsel also had taken me through the language employed in Section 408 of the code. The learned Public Prosecutor also had taken me through the impugned order and had submitted that in view of the nature of the order it is doubtful whether this withdrawal of the case was made on administrative side or on judicial side since in the beginning the application of the 2nd respondent dated 18-2-2002 is referred to. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that if it is an order to be construed on administrative side no notice is necessary, but, however, inasmuch as the application of the party had been referred to if it is to be construed to be an order on judicial side. It is always desirable that the court should have exercised the power u/sec. 408 of the Code after issuing notice to the effected parties i. e. , petitioners herein.

( 4 ) SRI K. Chaitanya, learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent, de facto complainant had submitted that apart from the technicalities incorporated in the matter the importance of criminal aspect it has to be considered while deciding the transfer application. It was further submitted that the de facto complainant, the unfortunate wife, for