B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. All the three transfer criminal petitions are filed by the respective accused out of about 47 accused in the Sessions Case No. 63 of 2009 pending at the stage of arguments, which is covered by Crime No. 37 of 2008 of S.H.O., Devarakonda Police Station, Kurnool District, State of Andhra Pradesh, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326,307, 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act, Sections 25(1)(b) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, for which offences, the accused were charged for trial.

2. The transfer Criminal Petition No. 180 of 2014 was filed on 04.08.2014 by the 1st accused M.M. Naidu to transfer the Sessions Case from the Court of II Additional District Judge at Adoni, Kurnool District, where it is pending to any other competent Court of Sessions, Kurnool Sessions Division. Along with the transfer application, the affidavit filed by the petitioner speaks from para No. 4 that the approach of the learned Presiding Officer in adjudicating the trial and guilt of the offence is completely biased and is being conducted in pro-prosecution manner. The Petitioner is presumed to be innocent till guilt is proved. Accused has substantial right of fair trial as mandated by constitutional law which envisages and guarantees various fundamental rights even to accused in any crime. The process of adjudication demand for fair trial in furtherance of determination of guilt. The averments particularly at para No. 7 reads as follows:

It is submitted during the adjudication of the trial on the 30.07.2014 during the course of the argument of Public Prosecutor, the Hon'ble Presiding Officer of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge at Adoni, Kurnool, intervening the arguments of Public Prosecutor communicated in the open Court that In any case of sessions pertaining to factions, like this no advocate should represent the case on behalf the accused and so that all the accused in such case shall be sentenced to imprisonment. Further commented that no advocate of decent standing shall represent the cases and it should be left to state brief who are generally inexperienced, so that it becomes easy to the court to convict and there by fear can be created among the factionists and thus the faction can be controlled.

3. His further averments from Para No. 8 onwards in nutshell are that the instance referred above would categorically reflect that Honourable Presiding Officer in pre-determined manner to convict the accused for alleged offence, before determination of the guilt though it is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt with substantial evidence and the Court is to adjudicate the facts and material placed on record to prove the guilt of the accused but not in a pre-determined manner by pre-judge the guilt of the accused without conclusion of the trial. The conduct of the presiding officer is creating in the mind of the accused, reasonable apprehension that he would not get a fair and impartial trial. The established principle is justice not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly to be seen and done.

4. He mentioned another instance in his affidavit para No. 11 onwards that A-15 and A-16 filed petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of P.Ws 2 and 4 for cross-examination and the presiding officer on 16.07.2014 when the matter was posted for counter of the prosecution, without giving opportunity to petitioners for hearing before counter filed by the prosecution side dismissed the said petition. In Para No. 12 of the affidavit, it is mentioned that the learned Presiding Officer in turn subsequent to the stating in the open Court regarding the dismissal of the above petition directed the prosecution to file its counter, so that he can pass the orders of the dismissal. The conduct of the presiding officer would clearly show that the presiding officer is pre-judging against the accused and in such circumstances, the accused would be denied a fair