Anil Kumar Sinha, J. – The petitioner, who is an accused in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2020, has filed the present application, under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for setting aside the order, dated 10.05.2022, passed in Misc. Transfer Case No. 76 of 2022, whereby the records of Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2020 has been transferred from 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Naugachia Sub- Division, Bhagalpur, to 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, at the instance of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The main submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the record of Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2020 has been transferred without any notice to the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur. The prayer for transfer of the records of Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2020 from Naugachia to Bhagalpur at the instance of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 was dismissed earlier on three occasions on identical facts by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur. In support of his argument, learned Senior Counsel relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Nirmal Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 126.

3. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, bars the jurisdiction of the criminal court to review the order and judgment, which has already been rendered. He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab vs. Divinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770.

4. The Supreme Court, in paragraph 44 of Divinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra), has held that when an order is passed, it cannot be reviewed. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court, the said court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law.

5. Accordingly, the submission is that in the light of the fact that earlier, on three occasions, similar petitions, filed by the informant/O.P. No. 2, were dismissed, the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, directing for transfer of a case from Naugachia to Bhagalpur amounts to reviewing the earlier order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 submits that the present application, under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not maintainable against the impugned order of transfer passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, inasmuch as the impugned order cannot be challenged in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is the power of the High Court to transfer cases or appeals. Learned Sessions judge, Bhagalpur, has exercised the power under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and while exercising his jurisdiction, he ordered for transfer of Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2020 within the same sessions division, in changed circumstances. The remedy before the petitioner against the impugned order is to file either revision application before the High Court or invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He further submits that the petitioner is a history-sheeter, having 24 criminal antecedents and the prosecution witnesses are being threatened and intimidated by the petitioner. He next submits that the lawyer of the accused, during the course of trial, threatened P.W. 5 and the Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the prosecution in the trial complained about the same to learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, upon which the learned 1st Additional Session