(M.R. Verma, J.) (Oral):- The petitioner/accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) by this application have prayed for transfer of the case F.I.R. No. 100/-99 under Sections 304/307 I.P.C. titled State vs. Santosh Kumar and others from the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rampur Bushehar to some other Sessions Division. The transfer has been prayed for on the grounds : (i) that all the accused belong to the States of Utter Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh and on account of the local factors it is highly inconvenient and risky to them to appear in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rampur to defend themselves (ii) that because of the activities of Center of Indian Trade Union (CITU) espousing the case of the striking workmen, accused apprehend danger to their persons from the members of the said Union (iii) that the accused have to travel more than 1000 kms, to come to attend the said case resulting in great financial strain on their meager salary; and (iv) that the common human feelings on account of regionalism are absolutely anti accused and they would not be able to face the trial with an equanimity in mind as the atmosphere in Rampur Bushahar is surcharged against them.

2. The application has been resisted by the State respondent on the grounds that the area concerned is quite peaceful and the distance the accused will have to travel to face the trial is no ground to transfer the case. It is further averred in the reply by the respondent that on the grounds as mentioned in the application, the case does not deserve to be transferred as prayed for.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on the record.

4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that there is no dispute that to face the trial the accused will have to travel a distance of about 1060 kms on each and every date of hearing, therefore, keeping in view the resultant inconvenience to the accused and the financial burden they will have to face In appearing before the trial court at Rampur the case maybe transferred to some other Court in view of the provisions of clause (c) of Sub Section (1) of Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here-in-after referred to as the Code) which empowers this Court to transfer cases and appeals from one Court to another if such transfer tends of the general convenience of the parties or witnesses or is convenient in the ends of justice. To substantiate his contention the learned counsel has relied on Shakti Raj Jangi Ram vs. State, 1969 Cri. L.J. 1161. In this case the prosecuting Sub-Inspector in his report to the Deputy Inspector General has stated that the delay in the commitment of the case was because of delaying tactics of the accused and a lenient view was taken by committing Magistrate. In turn the D.I.G. wrote to the District Magistrate, Delhi who had control over the Subordinate Magistrate in regard to their judicial as well as Executive functions for taking suitable action. The District Magistrate forewords the letter of the D.I.G. alongwith the report of the prosecuting Sub Inspector to the Magistrate holding the commitment proceedings. It was against this background the Delhi High Court held as follows: "....In Delhi, where the District Magistrate has complete control over all subordinate Magistrate, both in regard to their executive and judicial functions, the leaned Magistrate holding the commitment proceedings in the case in hand may not reasonably be considered to remain completely uninfluenced by the report of the P.S.I, and the covering letter of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, both of which have been forwarded to him by the learned District Magistrate, as has been suggested at the bar. Common human feelings and likely reaction of incidents, like the present, on an average human mind, mhay appropriately be taken into account when considering the question of expediency in the ends of justice for the purpose of tr