The central legal point established in the judgment is that the trial of a case should be conducted in an atmosphere free from improper interference with the course of justice, and the apprehension of the applicants for not getting a fair and impartial trial must be reasonable.

Judgment:

Subhash Kakade, J.

1. By this petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants are praying for transfer of Criminal Case No. 6939/2013, State of M.P. through P.S. Gopalganj, District Sagar Vs. Neelesh and others pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagar to Jabalpur. On dated 25-10-2013 unknown persons were committed theft in the house of the complainant. On the said allegation, Police Station, Gopalganj registered Crime No. 470/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 of IPC and after due investigation, the applicants were arrested and charge-sheeted.

2. The basis of transfer mentioned in petition is that the complainant is a practicing Advocate under the jurisdiction of Sessions Court, Sagar, hence he is pressurizing and giving threats to the Advocates of Sagar not to appear in the case of the applicants. All the Advocates of Sagar are afraid and in pressure of the complainant, therefore, they are against the applicant and not ready to defend their case. The applicants are in jail, hence, their relatives contacted with the Advocates, who belongs to other District but, looking to above mentioned pressure they did not ready to prosecute the case of the applicants at Sagar hence, fair and impartial trial is not possible at Sagar. The applicants have no faith or believe upon their Counsel or any Counsel of Sagar.

3. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, learned Counsel for the applicants submits that looking to status of the complaint that he is in position to influence the Advocates practicing at Sagar, it is a fit case in which transfer of the aforesaid case from District Sagar to Jabalpur or any other District is expedient for the ends of justice.

4. Learned Counsel for the States vehemently opposing the transfer of the case from Sagar.

5. Section 407 of Cr.PC clothes a party with the power to apply for transfer of a case, where the party apprehends he cannot get a fair or impartial enquiry or trial.

6. Cardinal Principle is that the trial of a case should be in an atmosphere, which does not create even a suspicion that there has been or is likely to be an improper interference with the course of justice. It is not merely of some importance but of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done.

7. In case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Rani Jethamalani, AIR 1979 SC 468, the Supreme Court observed that assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the Court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party of easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, in necessitous if the Court is to be exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case.

8. Now, the point for determination is whether the applicants have reasonable apprehension that they would not get a fair and impartial trial and whether the transfer of the case is expedient for the ends of justice?

9. On application for transfer the real test is whether there exist real grounds for the applicant's apprehension that they will not get a fair and impartial hearing. To judge the reasonableness of the apprehension, the state of mind of the person, who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entered but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension, though the party is not required to demonstrate the justice will inevitably fail but it has to show that is apprehension is reasonable one.

10. Now, duty is upon the applicant to show that there is existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some persons are so ho