This is a petition for transfer under section 526, Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner is the complainant who filed a report before the police of Chitapur against accused Nos. 1 and 26 others for offences under sections 395, 452 read with 149, Indian Penal Code complaining that A-1 with the help of others had committed dacoity in respect of 150 bags of Jawar kept in his godown. The police filed the charge-sheet against the accused-respondents before the Munsiff-Magistrate, Chitapur, on 19th May, 1966. Since the Presiding Officer of that Court happened to be a tenant of A-1, he made a reference to the Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, for transfer of that case to some other Court for enquiry. The learned Sessions Judge passed an order transferring the case to the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Sedam. The Munsiff-Magistrate, Sedam, committed the accused to Sessions for trial. The accused-respondents stand their trial before the Sessions Judge, Gulbarga for offences under sections 395, 452 read with 149, Indian Penal Code. When the trial commenced on 27th July, 1967 and a witness was examined for the prosecution, the petitioner who was being examined as P.W. 2 presented an application to the Sessions Judge stating that he would move the High Court for transfer of the case under section 526, Criminal Procedure Code to some other Court of Session. The Sessions Judge of Gulbarga passed an order as under:

“Complainant wants to get the case transferred though the Assistant Public Prosecutor does not want it. Since the complainant is an”interested person“within the meaning of section 526, Criminal Procedure Code, he can move for transfer. Hence the case is adjourned for a month on the complainant executing a bond for Rs. 200 as required by section 526 (8), Criminal Code Procedure.”

Thereafter, the petitioner filed this petition for transfer of Sessions Case No. 21/8/1966 pending trial before the Sessions Judge at Gulbarga to some other Sessions Court. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of the petition. The 2nd respondent on his behalf and on behalf of other respondents in the case except respondents 12 and 26 has filed a counter-affidavit. Respondent No. 1, the State of Mysore, has not filed any counter-affidavit.

Before going into the merits of the case, it is necessary to deal with two objections raised by Mr. Malimath, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 11, 13 to 24 and 26 to 28, which are in the nature of preliminary objections in this case. The first objection raised by Mr. Malimath is that the petitioner has no locus standi to move for transfer of this case. The second objection is that the affidavit filed by the petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions of section 539-A, Criminal Procedure Code and therefore it cannot be looked into as evidence coming under the said provisions.

As regards the first objection, Mr. Malimath relied upon the provisions of section 526 (3) and (8), Criminal Procedure Code and argued that the expression “party interested” found in both the sub-sections does not include the petitioner who is not a complainant but who is only an informant and who laid a report before the police in a cognizable case. He urged that the petitioner may be considered to be a person interested but under no circumstances he can be treated as a party interested as required under sub-sections (3) and (8) of section 526, Criminal Procedure Code referred to above. Further he urged that the petitioner intimated the Court of his intention to move for transfer after one prosecution, witness was examined. This, according to Mr. Malimath, is done with the mala fide intention to harass the accused. On the other hand, Mr. Deshpande, learned Advocate for the petitioner urged that the petitioner who laid a complaint before the police is a party interested and he has every right under these two sub-sections to move for a transfer of the case pending before the Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, and that he can do s