:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.506 of 2008 IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 805 OF 2006 Mohd. Yusuf Isak Ansari. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr. B.J.Sarawade for the Applicant. Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATED : 7th March, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is an application for transfer of the case from the court of Shri.K.P. Purohit, Sessions Judge, Kurla who is hearing the said sessions case. 2. On perusal of the application, I find that, it is submitted in Para-5 that the defence lawyer Shri. B.J. Sarwade was the Hon. Secretary of the City Civil and Sessions Court Bar Association, Mumbai and while he was Secretary, the resolution was moved against several Judges of the City Civil & Sessions Court including Mr. K.P. Purohit and the resolution was to relieve the Judges mentioned in the resolution from acting as Judges from the City Civil & Sessions Court. It is contended that the defence advocate being Secretary of the Bar Association had signed the said resolution. It is further contended that the complaint was also made to the High Court against the said Judges and the same :2: is pending. It is vaguely contended that this might be the reason as to why the Sessions Judge is harassing the applicant. The reason given is vague.The resolution was passed as back as on 16.2.2006. In my view this cannot be a reason to transfer the case from the Judge who has entrusted the sessions case of the applicant. 3. In Para-4 certain instances are mentioned which according to the applicant are grounds for transferring the case. In Para-4(iv) it is stated that certain admissions were not recorded. The ground is vague. The date of the said recording of evidence is not mentioned so also the omissions in the evidence are not mentioned. Similarly the nature of the admissions are not disclosed. I am informed by the Advocate that this occurred on 23.1.2008. No application was made before the Trial Judge placing omissions on record. In Para-4(iii) it is mentioned that when the evidence of panch witness was in progress though the pancha witness had not stated about the sealing of the articles, the factum of sealing was introduced by the Judge though objection for recording the word "sealing" was taken by the defence lawyer. I find that no application has been made on behalf of the applicant to place on record regarding wrongful recording of evidence. This grievance appears to be made for the first time in this court. :3: 4. Yet another instance is that on 15.1.2008 the Judge disallowed the questions put by the defence lawyer. My attention is drawn to an application dated 15.1.2008. On perusal of the same it appears that the application was made without affixing the court fees and the Judge rejected the said application for want of court fees. It is always open to the applicant to make a proper application affixing the court fees as required. In my view the aforesaid instances cannot be the ground for transfer of the case. Hence, application is rejected. ( R.S.MOHITE, J.)