Result of U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Main Written) Examination, 2014 Direct Recruitment to U.P. Higher Judicial Service held on 14th, 15th and 16th November, 2014 has been declared. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur notified Advertisement for recruitment additional district judges through M.P. Higher Judicial Service (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment for BAR, Exam 2015 Haryana Judicial Services Examination 2014-Pre is conducted on 10th of Jan 2015. The result is awaited. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI will hold examination for direct recruitment against 14 vacancies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on Sunday, the 06th April,2014-Last Date 06.02.2014 13/11/2013: While renewing the term of the appointment of the existing incumbents the State Government is required to consider their past performance and conduct in the light of the recommendations made by the District Judges and the District Magistrates. Therefore, the High Court could not have issued a Mandamus for renewal of the term of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other similarly situated persons and thereby frustrated the provisions of LR Manual and Section 24 Cr.P.C .- SUPREME COURT.
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
Go Back to High Court Judgements
  Date 3/25/2011 12:00:00 AM
  Court Allahabad High Court
  Parties Laxmi Narain Pandey Vs. State Of U.P. And Others
  Appeal Writ Petition - 85 of 2011
  Act Criminal Procedure Code - 307
  Judgement
  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 85 of 2011 Laxmi Narain Pandey Vs. State Of U.P. And Others Honble Shri Kant Tripathi,J. 1. Heard Mr. D.S. Misra assisted by Mr. Kailash Prakash Pathak for the applicant, Mr. Vijai Shanker Misra assisted by Mr. Rahul Misra for the respondents no.2 and 3 and Mr. N.D. Rai learned AGA for respondent no.1 and perused the record. 2. By this transfer application under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code), the applicant Laxmi Narain Pandey, an accused, has sought for transfer of S.T. No. 435 of 2006, State vs. Laxmi Narain Pandey and others, from the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Azamgarh to any other district preferably of western Uttar Pradesh. 3. Mr. D.S. Mishra submitted on the basis of letters dated 12.6.2007 (Annexure 5A) and 22.8.2007 (Annexure 7) of the then District and Sessions Judge Mr. Vimal Kishore and letters dated 26.3.2007 (Annexure 4) of Mr. B.M. Sinha and letter dated 3.8.2007 (Annexure 6) of Mr. Subhash Chandra-III, the then Additional Sessions Judges and also on the basis of complaints dated 30.3.2007 and 7.6.2007 (Annexure 2 and 4A) given by the respondent no.3 to the District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, that the respondent no.3 and his companion advocates have been and are still involved in terrorising and intimidating the District and Sessions Judge and senior judicial officers, therefore, a free and fair trial in district Azamgarh is not possible. As such the applicant will not get justice in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Azamgarh. Mr. Mishra further submitted that one Bajrang Tripathi, who is a cousin of the deceased, is running Children College and Medical College in Azamgarh and is a very influential person in the entire Purvanchal, therefore, he exercises influence over the district administration and district judiciary in Azamgarh. It was next submitted that the present presiding officer Mr. Ramashraya Singh is also acting under the pressure of the respondent no.3 as both of them perform morning walk together and their residences situate in front of each other and there is only a road in between their residences. According to Mr. Mishra, the apprehension raised by the applicant finds further corroboration from the conduct of Mr. Ramashraya Singh in passing the order dated 4.2.2011 whereby he rejected the applicants prayer for taking judicial notice of prominent marks of his identification and also in passing subsequent orders closing the arguments of the accused persons and fixing a date for judgment and merely providing an opportunity to the accused to submit written arguments. Mr. D.S. Mishra lastly submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case it would be just and expedient to transfer the aforesaid session trial to some other district so that a fair and impartial justice may be secured. 4. Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra on the other hand submitted that both the letters of Mr. Vimal Kishore, the then District and Sessions Judge and also the letters of the then presiding officers, Mr. B.M. Sinha and Mr. Subhash Chandra-III as well as the alleged complaints made by the respondent no.3 relate to incidents that took place in the year 2007, therefore, they can not be taken as a ground to hold that the apprehension raised by the applicant in the year 2011 is based on reasonable grounds. Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra further submitted that the story set up by the applicant that the residences of Mr. Ramashraya Singh and the respondent no.3 are in front of each other and they perform morning walk together is a mischievous statement, which has been concocted to create a ground for transfer of the case. In fact, the applicant himself expressed full faith on the impartiality and the fairness of Mr. Ramashraya Singh in his application dated 1.2.2011, therefore, the contention that the presiding officer is not fair has no substance. Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra denied that Bajrang Tripathi has any influence on the judicial officers of the district Azamgarh. He lastly submitted that the applicant and other accused intend to prolong the trial so long as they do not get the presiding officer of their choice, therefore, the application dated 1.2.2011 was moved after most of the arguments had already concluded. The presiding officer rejected the application dated 1.2.2011 by an elaborate order. The applicant, instead of preferring an appropriate proceeding against that order, filed this transfer application with ulterior motive to deny justice to the family of the deceased. 5. The Apex Court, on various occasions, had opportunity to consider the necessity of fair and impartial trial in criminal justice system and various circumstances in which a trial can be transferred to secure fair and impartial justice. It seems to be advantageous to refer to some of the leading decisions of the Apex Court touching the matter in controversy involved in the present transfer application. 6. In Gurcharan Dass Chadha vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 1418, the Apex Court held: - "13. ..A case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. A petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged. It is one of the principles of the administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. However, a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice. The Court has further to see whether apprehension is reasonable or not. To judge the reasonableness of the apprehension the state of the mind of the person who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertained, but must appear to the court to be a reasonable apprehension." 7. In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi vs. Rani Jethmalani (1979) 4 SCC 167, the Apex Court has observed as under: "2. 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 or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioners grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances." 8. In K. Anbazhagan vs. Superintendent of Police (2004) 3 SCC 767, the Apex Court has held as follows: "30. Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and not free from bias, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake shaking the confidence of the public in the system and woe would be the rule of law. It is important to note that in such a case the question is not whether the petitioner is actually biased but the question is whether the circumstances are such that there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner." 9. In Abdul Nazar Madani vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2000) 6 SCC 204, the Apex Court observed as follows: "7. The purpose of criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, any party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406 Cr.P.C. The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises. If it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not possible impartially and objectively and without any bias, before any court or even at any place, the appropriate court may transfer the case to another court where it feels that holding of fair and proper trial is conducive. No universal or hard-and-fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioners alone who approached the court on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society." 10. In the case of Captain Amarinder Singh Vs. Parkash Singh Badal and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 260, the Apex Court, while dealing with two transfer applications preferred under section 406 of the Code, on the ground that with the change in State Government, the trial was suffering setback due to the influence of the new Chief Minister as also the lack of interest by the Public Prosecutor, has observed in paras 18, 19 and 20, as follows: "18. For a transfer of a criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice will not be done. It is one of the principles of administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. On the other hand, mere allegations that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice. In other words, the court has further to see whether the apprehension alleged is reasonable or not. The apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the court to be a reasonable apprehension. 19. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice. The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that the public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, the aggrieved party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406 CrPC. 20. However, the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary. Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and if it is biased, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking the confidence of the public in the system. The apprehension must appear to the court to be a reasonable one." 11. In the case of Nahar Singh Yadav and another vs. Union of India and others, 2010 (12) Judgment Today 641, the Apex Court has observed as follows: "Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said Section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of a trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are:- (i)when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution; (ii)when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant; (iii)comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses; (iv)a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability of holding fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and (v)existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice. 12. The Apex Court, in the case of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158, propounded that fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. 13. Therefore, it is well settled that justice should not only be done but it appears to have been done. A true and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. It is equally well settled that an impartial and uninfluenced trial is the fundamental requirement of a fair trial and if a trial is not fair and free, the confidence of a common man in the system would be shaken. But at the same time, it should also be kept in mind that transfer of a criminal case should not be made particularly a part heard case on flimsy grounds or merely on raising of apprehension by a party to the case, therefore, the apprehension must have some substantial or reasonable basis and it is not in any way either imaginary or based on conjectures and surmises. If the transfer application is moved merely to cause delay in disposal of the case, it should be dismissed outrightly. If a case of reasonable apprehension of partiality or bias is made out on the basis of relevant material against the judge, before whom the matter is pending, the court, dealing with the transfer application, in order to secure fair and impartial trial, should ordinarily exercise the discretion in favour of transferring the case. In this view of the matter, the court hearing the transfer application is required to see whether or not the apprehension raised by the person seeking transfer of the case, has any reasonable basis to contend that the judge is partial or biased and as such he would not get justice. 14. The incident of the aforesaid sessions trial seems to be sensational one, in which Principal of a college is alleged to have been killed by the Manager and his aide. The matter seems to be hotly contested since the very inception. Even at the stage of bail before the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, certain controversies arose, therefore, Mr. Vimal Kishore, the then Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, transferred the bail application to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh. After the commitment of the case to the court of sessions, the trial was also transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh. When the matter was pending before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh, the present applicant moved transfer application no. 436 of 2006 in this court for transfer of the trial to a nearby district. That transfer application was heard and disposed of on 20.9.2006 by Honble V.K. Chaturvedi, J (as he then was) with the following observations: "Without entering into merits and demerits of allegations and counter allegations made, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where matter should be transferred from the court of Additional District Judge, court no.1, Azamgarh. In the facts and circumstances, the trial court is hereby directed to dispose of the trial in question within a period of six months on day to day basis without allowing any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and is further directed not to allow any other counsel except counsel for the parties and the public prosecutor during trial proceedings. The counsel for the complainant shall argue the case only after taking permission of the court. If, counsel for either side, try to disturb the proceedings of the trial or create untoward and uncalled for scene, the trial court is free to proceed against them strictly in accordance with law." 15. After passing of the aforesaid order, the trial proceeded in the district Azamgarh. 16. During the regime Mr. Vimal Kishore was the District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh and Mr. B.M. Sinha and Mr. Subhash Chandra III were presiding officer of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh, certain controversies arose. According to the applicant, the respondent no.3 Mr. Ravindra Nath Tripathi, who is a practising advocate at Azamgarh and is cousin of the deceased, used to terrorise and intimidate the presiding officer of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1 and the District and Sessions Judge, with the assistance of a group of lawyers, who collectively used to visit to the chambers of the presiding officers of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1 and the District and Sessions Judge. Besides this, the respondent no. 3 handed over the letter dated 30.3.2007 (Annexure 2) and the letter dated 7.6.2007 (Annexure 4A) to the District and Sessions Judge Mr. Vimal Kishore, on which Mr. Vimal Kishore passed orders. It may also be mentioned that Mr. B.M. Sinha, the then presiding officer of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh sent the letter dated 26.3.2007 (Annexure 4) to the District and Sessions Judge making certain allegations of threat and undue pressure by the respondent no.3 and his companion advocates. A similar letter dated 3.8.2007 (Annexure 4) was sent by the subsequent presiding officer Mr. Subhash Chandra III. On account of various incidents of alleged pressure tactics adopted by the respondent no.3 and his associates on the District and Sessions Judge and the aforesaid presiding officers, Mr. Vimal Kishore, the then District and Sessions Judge sent letters dated 12.6.2007 (Annexure 5A) and 22.8.2007 (Annexure 7) to the High Court for transfer of the sessions trial to some other district. It may further be mentioned that Honble the Administrative Judge, Azamgarh had also taken cognizance of the entire episode, and passed three different orders. The first order passed by Honble the Administrative Judge on 28.4.2008 was communicated to the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh by Mr. B.L. Yadav, Officer on Special Duty vide his letter dated 30.4.2008 (Annexure 8). The said order is reproduced as follows: "Put up with complaints made by Sri Tripathi against Sri Vimal Kishore, Subhash Chandra and B.M. Sinha. It appears that the aforesaid language said to have been used by the contemnor are not based on any record. Rather they appear to be as per memory. The incident is said to have taken place about a year back. Whether Subhash Chandra A.D.J. Could remember word for word what has been transcribed above for drawing contempt proceedings. Complete original file be placed before me by 15th May 2008." 17. The second order passed by Honble the Administrative Judge is dated 18.7.2008, which was communicated to the District and Sessions Judge by the aforesaid O.S.D. of this Court, which is reproduced as follows: "However, as Sri Subhash Chandra (III), Addl. District & Sessions Judge is the complainant in the matter may not proceed in his court, so as to protect the learned Judge and learned Advocate from accusations." 18. It also appears that the regime of Mr. Vimal Kishore the then District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh and other presiding officers came to an end and a new set of officers took over in district Azamgarh. One of the subsequent District Judges, namely, Mr. C.N. Mishra wrote the letter dated 27.8.2008 (Annexure 9) to Mr. B.L. Yadav, O.S.D. of this Court indicating the reasons as to why it was not possible to implement the order dated 18.7.2008 passed by Honble the Administrative Judge and one of the reasons was that the High Court on its judicial side had transferred the trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh, therefore, the trial could not be transferred by administrative order. Consequently, Honble the Administrative Judge, Azamgarh passed the order dated 9.1.2009, which was communicated by the O.S.D. of this Court vide the letter dated 13.1.2009 to the District Judge, Azamgarh, which reads as follows: "..Since a judicial order cannot be interfered with by an administrative order, therefore, the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh should proceed with the trial as per law. The officer concerned be informed accordingly though the District Judge, Azamgarh in response to his letter dated 06.11.2008." 19. Accordingly, the aforesaid Sessions Trial proceeded in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh, who recorded not only the statements of the prosecution witnesses but also the defence witnesses and the case reached the stage of arguments. In view of the facts stated hereinbefore, whatever controversy with the respondent no.3 had been during the regime of Mr. Vimal Kishore, the then District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh and Mr. B.M. Sinha and Mr. Subhash Chandra-III Additional Sessions Judges, came to an end on their transfer, therefore, the said controversy can not be taken as a relevant ground after about four years to transfer the case from the present presiding officer. There is no material or allegation that a similar controversy again arose after the era of the aforesaid judicial officers. Even the letter dated 27.8.2008 (Annexure 9) sent by the then District and Sessions Judge Mr. C.N. Mishra has not expressed any such controversy. It may not be out of context to mention that after the end of the tenure of Mr. B.M. Sinha and Mr. Subhash Chandra-III Additional Sessions Judges, neither the present presiding officer Mr. Ramashraya Singh nor his predecessors in office, who recorded evidence etc., made any complaint regarding the alleged act and conduct of the respondent no.3 against the judicial officers. 20. It may also be mentioned that the present presiding officer of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Azamgarh, Mr. Ramashraya Singh, took over charge in district Azamgarh on 21.10.2009 as Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh, who recorded evidence till 26.2.2010 and thereafter posted the case for arguments. Arguments of the Public Prosecutor and some of the defence counsel concluded before him. The last argument was to be advanced by Mr. Shiv Dhani Singh, Advocate, appearing for some of the accused, who commenced his arguments but before he could conclude his submissions, Mr. Ramashraya Singh was appointed by the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh as the presiding officer of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Azamgarh, where Mr. Singh took over charge on 8.6.2010. Therefore, the aforesaid part-heard session trial came up before a new presiding officer of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh. The respondent no.2, Atul Tripathi, the son of the deceased, moved transfer application no. 429 of 2010 in this Court with the request to transfer the aforesaid session trial to the court presided over by Mr. Ramashraya Singh. Honble Bala Krishna Narayana, J. heard the aforesaid transfer application and allowed the same vide the order dated 3.8.2010 and directed for transfer of the aforesaid session trial from the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Azamgarh. After receipt of the record in pursuance of the order dated 3.8.2010 passed by this Court, Mr. Ramashraya Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Azamgarh proceeded with the trial. At the stage of arguments, on 1.2.2011, the applicant Laxmi Narain Pandey and accused Pawan Kumar Pandey moved an application on 1.2.2011 for taking judicial notice of their prominent marks of identification and placing the same on record. In that application, the applicant and co-accused Pawan Kumar Pandey expressed full faith on the presiding officer Mr. Ramashraya Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the said application and rejected the same vide his order dated 4.2.2011 and fixed 8.2.2011 for further arguments but no argument could commence either on 8.2.2011 or any other date fixed thereafter and the accused persons moved application for adjournment for filing the appropriate legal proceedings in the higher court against the order dated 4.2.2011. On 21.2.2011 again an adjournment application was moved but the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the same for want of sufficient ground for adjournment and closed the opportunity provided to the applicant for making submissions and fixed 4.3.2011 for judgment and required the defence to file written arguments, if any, by 25.2.2011. 21. In view of the aforesaid developments taking place at the stage of argument, the applicant seems to be aggrieved from the order dated 4.2.2011, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Azamgarh rejected the prayer of the applicant and co-accused Pawan Kumar Pandey for taking judicial notice of their prominent marks of identification. But the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge can not be assailed by the instant transfer application nor it can be made a ground for transfer of the case. If the applicant or co-accused Pawan Kumar Pandey was aggrieved of the aforesaid order, it was open for them to file appropriate legal proceeding against that order. Rejection of adjournment application or closure of argument on the ground that the applicant and other accused had adopted dilatory tactics or requiring the applicant and other accused to file written arguments, also can not be taken as a reasonable basis to hold that the applicant will not get justice from the court presiding over by Mr. Ramashraya Singh. 22. So far as the ground taken by the applicant that deceaseds cousin Mr. Bajrang Tripathi runs a Children College and Medical College in Azamgarh and is an influential person having influence over the District Administration and District Judiciary in district Azamgarh is concerned, it has also no substance. It can not be denied that in most of the districts some of the persons are influential due to one reason or the other but mere on the basis of that it can not be inferred that the judges act on their pressure. There is no material to support that any ward, relative or other person associated with Mr. Ramashraya Singh is either taking any education in the Institution established by Mr. Bajrang Tripathi or is otherwise obliged by him. In absence of relevant material on this point, the apprehension of the applicant that Mr. Bajrang Tripathi has influence on the presiding officer is devoid of merit. So far as the allegation that the respondent no.3 and Mr. Ramashraya Singh perform morning walk together or they live in front of each other is concerned, it has also no substance. Mr. Ramashraya Singh took over charge in the district Azamgarh on 21.10.2009 and since then he held so many proceedings in the aforesaid sessions trial. Had he been so associated with the respondent no.3, the applicants would have raised objection at the earliest and would not have allowed Mr. Ramashraya Singh to hold the sessions trial and to bring it upto the stage of arguments. In the application dated 1.2.2011, the applicant and co-accused Pawan Kumar Pandey expressed full faith on the impartiality and fairness of Mr. Ramashraya Singh. If there has been any personal rapport between the presiding officer and the respondent no.3 there was no reason for the applicant and aforesaid co-accused to express full faith in the presiding officer, therefore, this ground seems to be a sheer concoction and has thus no merit. 23. More so, the sessions trial is about to conclude. Most of the arguments have been heard by Mr. Ramashraya Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, at this juncture, transfer of the case would not only be improper but would also result in causing delay in the disposal of the case. It is true that the presiding officer has closed the arguments and required the accused to file written arguments but still it is open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to permit the accused to make oral submissions also. It is expected that the learned Additional Sessions Judge will proceed accordingly if any request for oral submission is made from the accused persons or their counsel, whose arguments (oral submissions) have not been heard. 24. For the reasons discussed above, the transfer application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Dated:-25.3.2011 ________________________________________