( 1 ) THESE are the petitions arising out of case no. 78/2002 under Section 364/302/201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Kavi Nagar Police Station, Ghaziabad, seeking transfer of the case under Section 407 Cr. P. C. , pending before the Court of Sh. S. N. Dhingra, Addl. Sessions Judge to any other court of competent jurisdiction. It is pertinent to mention that earlier to these petitions, the petitioners had also moved a similar petition before this court which was dismissed with sombre advice by his Lordship Justice R. C. Chopra to the learned Additional Sessions Judge that judges trying criminal cases should neither be too vocal nor to be excited in making observations or comments which may have tendency to send wrong signals to the parties.

( 2 ) THIS case which was transferred from U. P. to Delhi by the orders of the Supreme Court, was assigned for trial by the District and Sessions Judge of Delhi to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sh. S. N. Dhingra.

( 3 ) THE earlier petition was a result of various incidents that took place during the proceedings which allegedly caused serious apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that they may not get a fair trial. Some of the incidents that took place since 20th January, 2003 detailed in the said petition were like this:-

(I)THAT at the very inception, the Honourable Judge was making wild allegations in the court that the events in Madhya Pradesh have been managed by the applicant/accused, though the various proceedings which were initiated in Madhya Pradesh, were judicial proceedings.

(II)THAT during the course of arguments, the Honourable Judge had made avoidable remarks like he is the person who has convicted politicians like Kalpanath Rai and he knows how to deal with person like the petitioner.

(III)THAT 21st January, 2003, the persons responsible for taking the photographs were to appear in the Court and since they were not present, the court suo moto stated that it would exhibit the photographs in the absence of the photographer as there was no need for the accused to dispute their presence on the spot. That the counsel for the accused objected to the exhibiting of the photographs in the absence of the photographer when the court remarked that if they are disputing their presence at the place where the marriage took place, then in a few days time, several witnesses will come who shall depose to the contrary.

(IV)THAT again on 21st January, 2003, the DNA expert from Kolkatta Dr. Sharma, was to appear in the court pursuant to the summons issued to him. That he not only did not appear in the court, but he did not send also any person conversant with the facts of the case to depose on his behalf. The Honourable Judge waived his presence purportedly in terms of Section 293 Cr. P. C. and also directed that the documents be exhibited and that in the event the counsel for the accused wants to cross-examine the doctor, he should move an application specifying the reasons/grounds on which he would like to cross examine the DNA specialist. That it was brought to the notice of the court that the papers sent by the DNA expert were incomplete papers and therefore, should not be exhibited more so in the absence of the expert. The crucial data which is a genotype Gel which is a film on the basis of which the expert can come to certain conclusions, was not sent to the court and therefore, the counsel insisted that the aforesaid documents be directed to be produced in the court. The Honourable Judge overlooked the plea and did not even record the objections raised by the counsel for the applicant/accused. That it is pertinent to mention that until the genotype gel is placed on record, the accused will not be in a position to verify the genuineness/authenticity of the various calculations made by the doctor, as these calculations are merely, typed print outs without revealing the source from which the figures have been extracted. That in these circumstances, the accused w