Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The petitioner has questioned the legality of order dated 24.05.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda by which he had transferred the case registered vide FIR No.15 dated 13.04.2010, under Sections 302, 307 & 34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Phul, District Bathinda titled as ‘State Vs. Amarvir Singh’ and cross case lodged vide DDR No.18 dated 13.04.2010, under Sections 307, 452, 148, 149 IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Phul, District Bathinda titled as ‘State Vs. Harbans Singh’ from the Court of Shri Sukhdev Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda to the Court of Shri D.S.Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda during the pendency of the trial contrary to Section 409(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short “Cr.P.C.”] and the administrative instructions of this Court (Annexure P-12).

2. Admittedly, the aforesaid cases were pending in the Court of Shri S.K.Sachdeva, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda but on withdrawal of the said Court, the aforesaid cases were transferred to the Court of Shri Sukhdev Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 03.04.2011 from where it has now been transferred to the Court of Shri D.S.Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the challan was presented on 19.07.2010 and the charge was framed on 27.09.2010, whereas the aforesaid cases were assigned to the Court of Shri Sukhdev Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 03.04.2011 on withdrawal of the Court of Shri S.K. Sachdeva, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda and have been further transferred to the Court of Shri D.S. Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 24.05.2011. He has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer the case to any other Additional Sessions Judge after the commencement of the trial in view of Section 409(2) of the Cr.P.C. and since Shri D.S. Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda was not having two years’ experience at the relevant time, therefore, in terms of the letter No.12201-Gaz.II(2)/IX.C.18 dated 11.04.2008 (Annexure P-12), the trial of the case registered under Section 302 IPC could not have been assigned to him.

4. At the first instance, this Court had found it appropriate to seek comments of the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda in respect of both the aforesaid assertions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda had sent his comments vide his letter dated 03.08.2011 in which he has averred that both the cases were pending in the Court of Shri S.K.Sachdeva, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda, but on the withdrawal of the said Court, these cases were transferred to the Court of Shri Sukhdev Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 03.04.2011 and after the creation of the Court of Shri D.S.Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, these cases were assigned to him on the administrative ground vide order dated 24.05.2011 in order to provide him work. It is also averred that Shri D.S.Johal had apprised him that while posted as Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Patiala, he was trying the cases under Section 302 IPC also and by now Shri D.S.Johal has completed two years’ of experience as Additional Sessions Judge.

6. As per the aforesaid admitted facts, the trial of this case was before the Court of Shri S.K.Sachdeva, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda whose Court was withdrawn and both the cases were transferred to the Court of Shri Sukhdev Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 03.04.2011 from whom the cases were withdrawn and assigned to the Court of Shri D.S.Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 24.05.2011.

7. Admittedly, the charge was framed on 27.09.2010. It is well settled that the trial of a Sessions case comm