IMPORTANT POINTS
A mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice. The Court has further to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. To judge of the reasonableness of the apprehension the state of the mind of the person who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertained, but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension.

ORDER :

The petitioner is the first accused in the case S.C.No.247/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kollam.

2. This petition is filed under Sections 407 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') praying that the case S.C.No.247/2019 pending before the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kollam may be transferred to the court of any other Sessions Judge in the Kollam District. There is also a prayer made in this petition to direct the transferee court to conduct de novo trial in the aforesaid case.

3. The averments in the petition can be briefly stated as follows: The case S.C.No.247/2019 pending before the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kollam is based on Crime No.839/2018 of Paravoor police station, which was registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)B and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. There are two accused in the case. The trial of the case commenced on 27.08.2019. During the trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Exts.P1 to P24 documents and MO1 to MO6 material objects. Thereafter, the case was posted on 05.09.2019 and the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code on that date. The case was then posted to 17.09.2019 for defence evidence. No evidence was adduced by the accused and therefore, the case was adjourned to 23.09.2019 for hearing. On 23.09.2019, the case was adjourned to 25.09.2019 for hearing. Throughout the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses by the defence lawyer, the learned Sessions Judge used to interfere and guide and lead the witnesses to give evidence in favour of the prosecution. Learned Sessions Judge interfered with the cross-examination as if he was highly prejudiced in the matter. After recording the evidence of the witnesses, the depositions were not read over to the witnesses as required under Section 278 of the Code. On 20.09.2019, the counsel for the petitioner filed application to obtain certified copies of the depositions of the witnesses. After getting the certified copies of the depositions, when the defence lawyer perused them, it came to his notice that, many of the vital questions put by him to the witnesses during the cross-examination and material points elicited from the witnesses, which tend to prove the falsity of the prosecution case, were not recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. Moreover, it has been falsely recorded that the depositions were read over to the witnesses. On 25.09.2019, the petitioner was not prepared to argue the case as he was aware that arguing the case on the basis of the depositions recorded by the trial court would ruin his case. On 25.9.2019, the petitioner filed an application before the trial court seeking adjournment of the hearing of the matter for the purpose of filing a transfer petition. In the affidavit accompanying the said petition, the petitioner had explained what transpired during the proceedings of the court in the trial. On reading the contents of the said petition and the affidavit, the trial court was unnecessarily annoyed and the Sessions Judge used harsh words against the defence lawyer and he declared that he will teach the lawyer a lesson. Opportunity of fair trial has been clearly denied to the accused. The petitioner fears that justice would be denied to him in the case. The attitude of the learned Sessions Judge in the trial of the case was highly biased and improper.

4. This Court had called for the remarks of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Kollam with regard to the averments in the petition. In the letter dated 16.11.2019, the learned Sessions Judge has narrated in detail the steps taken during the trial of the case. He has further stated in his report that, on 23.09.2019, the counsel for the first accused sought adjournment on the ground of personal inconvenience and hearing of the case was adjourned to 25.09.2019. On 25.09.2019 also, the counsel for the first accused sought adjournment but the court was not pre