Sujit Barman Roy, J. : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State. Informant of the case is the petitioner here By this 'application informant/petitioner has expressed his grievance against the order of the 'learned Sessions Judge, Midnapore in Sessions Trial No. II/Oct. 1998 transferring the said case to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge. First Court, Contai for trial and disposal.

2. The case of the petitioner in short is that in this case charge-sheet was filed inter alia under section 307/120B I.P.C. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. is life imprisonment. However, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge instead of framing any charge under section 307, he framed charges, inter alia under section 395 I.P.C. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that maximum punishment prescribed for offences 'under section 395/307 I.P.C. is life imprisonment.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of section 28 Cr.P.C. the maximum possible punishment that can be awarded by the Assistant Sessions Judge cannot be above 10 years. In fact subsection (3) of section 28 Cr.P.C. pro