( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 751 OF 2009 Dinesh s/o Narendra Saraswat PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. L.V. Sangit, advocate holding for Mrs. M.L. Sangit, advocate for the petitioner. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 18th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. A sessions case bearing No. 89/2008 was pending before the learned Sessions Judge (Court No.2) and Additional Sessions Judge presided over by the then Additional Sessions Judge of that Court, namely, Mr. R.S. Kharkar. The trial had begun and five (5) witnesses were examined before him in that Sessions Case. It appears that in the first week of June, 2009, he was transferred as Additional Sessions Judge and ( 2 ) District Judge (Court No.1) in place of the Presiding Officer of said Court who was transferred out of the district. The Court presided over by Mr. Kharkar was then filled up by transfer of Mr. Agrawal before whom three (3) witnesses were examined in the sessions trial. Thereafter, an application was moved by the accused persons for re-transfer of the said sessions case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Mr. Kharkar. The said application (Cri. Misc. Application No. 149/2009) has been allowed by the learned Principal District Judge/Sessions Judge. Feeling aggrieved, the original complainant has filed present petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. So far as power to withdraw or transfer of sessions case is concerned, it is significant to notice that the learned Sessions Judge may exercise such a power under section 409 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code at any time before the trial of the case or hearing of the appeal has commenced. The limitation on exercise of such power is implicit in the provision itself. The ( 3 ) Sessions Judge cannot withdraw a sessions case or cannot transfer such a case from the file of one Additional Sessions Judge to another Additional Sessions Judge if the trial has already commenced. It is amply clear that the trial of the sessions case had already begun before the learned Sessions Judge Mr. Kharkar. The file was retained with the successor Judge and he continued to examine the three (3) witnesses, but it does not mean that the transfer of such case was effected. In view of embargo on the powers of the Sessions Judge to withdraw such cases, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is quite proper and legal. No interference is called for. If the complainant is aggrieved due to any other reasons or has some other grounds to put forth for the purpose of transfer, he may seek appropriate remedy as provided under the law. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIWP751-09