( 1 ) THIS is an application for transfer of a case pending against the opposite party under Section 302, Penal Code in the Court of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly.

( 2 ) THE opposite party is said to have committed the murder of Raghunandan Prasad, who was the brother of the applicant.

( 3 ) THE applicant wrote out the first information report of the occurrence and sent it to the police station with Raghunandan Prasad. Raghu-nandan Prasad was conscious when he reached the police station. The police investigated the matter and prosecuted the opposite party under section 302, Penal Code.

( 4 ) THE applicant wants the case to be transferred to another Court on the ground that he does not expect a fair and impartial trial in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. When the application came up for hearing first, I was informed by the State counsel that he had no instruction either to support or to oppose it. The hearing was adjourned and when it came up again, the State Counsel informed me that he had received instructions to support it. It appears from the opposite partys affidavit that in the interval the applicant had managed to get a telegram sent by the District Magistrate to the State counsel to support it.

( 5 ) IT is laid down in Section 526 (3), Criminal P. C. that a High Court may transfer a case "either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative. " it is laid down in Section 526 (8) that if "any party interested intimates to the court that he intends to make an application under this section, the Court shall adjourn the case. " section 526 is the only provision under which this Court can transfer a case. The first question that arises is whether the applicant is "a party Interested"; if he is not, this Court cannot act on his application. The word "party" is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. When it is used with reference to a proceeding in a Court, its primary meaning is a litigant. It means a person who has a part to play in the proceeding. In the absence of anything to the contrary in the context, the primary meaning of a word should be adopted. Wharton defines "parties" as "persons jointly concerned in any deed or act; litigants". If the word is used with reference to an agreement or a deed, the word means those persons who are jointly concerned in the agreement or the deed. If an application for transfer is dismissed, on the ground of its being frivolous or vexatious, the High Court is empowered by Section 526 (6-A) to order the applicant to pay compensation to "any person who has opposed the application. "

( 6 ) IN emperor v. Kanver Sen, A. I. R. 1930 All. 206 (P. B.) (A) it was argued on behalf of the applicant whose application had been dismissed as frivolous or vexatious, that the word "person" did not include Government, and that Government were not entitled to compensation even though they had opposed the application. It was conceded on behalf of the applicant that the words "a party interested" were wide enough to include the Crown or Government. A Full Bench of this Court held that the word "person" has a wider import than the words "a party interested" in Sub-section (3 ). It was pointed out by the Full Bench that in a criminal case the Crown is a necessary party in view of the immediateness of the public interest involved, that individual interests are not allowed to predominate as in a civil matter, and that public interest balances or in some case even out-weighs the private. It is clear from this decision that "a person interested" is not necessarily "a party interested". "a party interested" is "a person interested" but the converse is not always true. In the face of this ruling it is not open to me to say that "a party interested" means "a person interested". Under a certain statute "any party requiring" any act to be done by a Judge of a county Court may apply to any superior Court for a writ