A transfer of a case should be granted only on strong reasons, and mere presumption or possible apprehension are not sufficient grounds for transfer.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to transfer the case in S.C.No.192/2015, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madruai to any other Sessions Court in nearby District.)

1. This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to transfer the case in S.C.No.192/2015, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madruai to any other Sessions Court in near by District.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madruai, threatened the petitioner that he is going to convict him. Hence the petitioner is apprehending that he may not get a fair justice from the trial Court and he wants to transfer the case from the Court below to some other Court in another district and also raised allegations against the Judicial Officer in the affidavit.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that in this case, prosecution witnesses have been examined and Section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings was over and the case was posted for defence side evidence. Previously, the petitioner filed a transfer application in Crl.O.P(MD)No. 12750 of 2022. Subsequently, the same was withdrawn. Again, the petitioner filed this second transfer petition, by raising the allegation against the Judicial Officer. There is no bonafide on the part of the petitioner and also no merit in this petition and pleaded to dismiss the same.

4. I have considered the submissions made by both the learned parties.

5. On a perusal of records, it is seen that the witnesses PW-1 to PW-17 were examined and the Executive Magistrate, who conducted the enquiry with regard to the cause of death of the deceased person was subsequently examined and after completion of examination of prosecution witnesses, Section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings was also over and the case was posted for defence side witnesses. Further, the petitioner filed a transfer petition in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12750/2022 and the same was withdrawn. Now, the petitioner again filed this second transfer petition, by raising the allegation against the Judicial Officer and expressed his apprehension that he may not get a fair trial in the trial Court. In this regard, remarks have been called for from the Judicial Officer and the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madruai, submitted his remarks and in which, he denied the allegation raised by the petitioner, which runs as follows:

2) In fact on 11.10.2021 PW1 was examined in chief by the Learned Special Public Prosecutor. During the chief examination PW1 has not deposed in full fledged in par with statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. Hence the learned Special Public Prosecutor requested the Court to treat the witness hostile. Accordingly I have declared the withess PW1 as hostile and permitted Special Public Prosecutor to cross examine the witness. Thus the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross examined PW1. Further on the same day itself the learned advocate for the accused cross examined PW1 and Ex.D1, Ex.D2 the alleged letters written by the deceased were marked. At, this juncture, I havono interest with witness. What witness had deposed, it has been dictated and recorded. Thereafter the prosecution has examined PW2 to PW17 in subsequent hearings and the case was adjourned. During all these hearings the accused as well as the learned advocate for the accused have extended their co-operation with the Court for conducting trial. If really, allegations was true, definitely accused or his learned advocate would not have conducted the trial.

3) Moreover if really, I have threatened PW1, he would have taken action immediately. Even subsequent to examination of PW1, his sons and daughter were examined by the prosecution as PW9, PW10 and PW11. Therefore the allegations stated in para no.6 of the affidavit is totally false and imaginary. Likewise, if really I openly made statement against accused no.1, definitely the accused would not have p