1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this revision application the petitioner/informant, wife of the deceased is asking this Court to revise the order dated 22-1-2002 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3/2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarchi transferring the case from the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present revision application are that a trial was pending in the Court of 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi. After some time the said 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge was transferred but Sri S. B. Singh, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge started officiating as 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge. He officiated as such upto 19th March, 2001. On 20/04/2001, Sri Rajesh Kumar took charge of the said Court as 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge and the officiating 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, namely, Sri S. B. Singh was appointed as full fledged 1st Addl. Sessions Judge. While acting as an officiating 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge Sri S. B. Singh had examined number of the witnesses but after 20/04/2001 till 22nd January, 2002 (when the impugned order was passed), no witness was examined by the new incumbent Sri Rajesh Kumar. It appears that the accused persons filed an application before the Sessions Judge, inter alia, submitting that the case be transferred from the Court of 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge to the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge. The comments of Sri Rajesh Kumar, 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge were called for and he submitted to the Sessions Judge that he would have no objection if the trial is transferred from his Court. From the order dated 22-1-2002 it appears that after receiving he comments/report from 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge but without hearing the counsel for the State or anybody else the prayer made by the accused was allowed. The order dated 22-1-2002 does not say that the counsel for the State was called or he was heard. The petitioner says that transfer of the case from 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge to the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge is bad and illegal because of the bar contained under Sec. 409(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submits that undisputedly there can be no controversies of the fact that the trial was going on in the Court of 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge. He submits that after the new incumbent has taken charge, immediately thereafter no application for transfer was filed but the application was filed almost after about 10 months and the circumstances in which the case has been transferred would speak for itself.

4. Learned counsel for the non-applicants on the other hand submits that the trial was conducted by Sri S. B. Singh as officiating 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge and as the person, who had recorded the evidence, is required to hear and decide the charges in his capacity as the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, no wrong can be found with the order. He submits that right from 20-4-2001, when Sri S. B. Singh became the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge upto 22-1-2002 not even a single witness was examined, therefore, the transfer of the case from the Court of 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge to the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge was justified. Referring to the proceedings dated 7-3-2002 recorded by this Court it was contended that a fraud was played upon the Court by making wrong statements in obtaining the said orders. He submits that the revision application deserves to be dismissed.

5. For the purpose of this revision application, a reference to Sec. 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a must. It reads as under :-

"409. Withdrawal of cases and appeals by Sessions Judge.- (1) A Sessions Judge may withdraw any case or appeal fro, or recall any case or appeal which he has made over to, any Assistant Sessions judge or Chief Judicial Magistrate subordinate to him. (2) At any time before the trial of the case of the hearing of the appeal has commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge, a Sessions Judge may recall any case or appeal wh