Important Point—Justice is not only done but also seems to be done.

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner ' “ the original accused No.7 calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.545 of 2015 arising from the Sessions Case No.291 of 2003.

2. The case of the petitioner may be summarized as under:

2.1 The petitioner is one of the accused persons against whom an F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent No.2 herein before the Nadiad Town Police Station being C.R. No.I286 of 2002 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364(A), 120B, 447, 342 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

2.2 At the end of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on 31.10.2002. The case on being committed to the Court of Session was numbered as Sessions Case No.291 of 2003. By now, almost eighteen witnesses have been examined. After completion of the examination of the eighteen prosecution witnesses, the complainant preferred an application vide Exhibit ' “137 under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for joining one Shri Natubhai Maganbhai Edanwala as an accused in the sessions case. The said application came to be rejected vide order below Exhibit ' “137 dated 18.05.2006. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the complainant preferred the Special Criminal Application No.1444 of 2006 before this Court. The matter was heard finally on 02.12.2011 and was ordered to be rejected. It appears that being dissatisfied with the order passed by this Court in the Special Criminal Application No.1444 of 2006, the complainant filed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.17262 of 2012 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide order dated 11.01.2013 rejected the said S.L.P. with an observation that it would be open for the complainant to file an appropriate application under Section 319 of the Code, if at the end of the examination of all the witnesses, some material is found to connect the person sought to be arraigned as an accused with the alleged crime.

2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that between 2006 and 2013, the complainant kept on seeking time before the Sessions Court only on the ground of the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings.

2.4 It appears that the complainant once again filed an application under Section 319 of the Code for arraigning Shri Natubhai Maganbhai Edanwala as an accused in the trial relying on the examination of the prosecution witnesses Nos.19 to 23. Such an application was allowed. Shri Natubhai Maganbhai Edanwala, being dissatisfied with such an order, preferred the Special Criminal Application No.1731 of 2013 before this Court and this Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order.

2.5 It is the case of the petitioner that on 31.07.2015, the matter was on Board before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad. On that date, the petitioner was standing in the parking area meant for the four wheelers. At that time, the petitioner could overhear some conversation between the complainant and his son and they were discussing about the trial and were talking to each other that the matter would be surely taken up for hearing from the next date onwards and all the accused would definitely be convicted. According to the petitioner, the Presiding Officer thereafter said something regarding the trial which the petitioner correlated with the conversation he had overheard between the complainant and his son. It is the case of the petitioner that he was quite disturbed with the attitude of the Presiding Officer on that particular date.

2.6 Under such circumstances, referred to above, the petitioner moved an application being the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.545 of 2015 under Section 408 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad for transfer of the sessions case to any other Court in the same Sessions Division.