..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1178 OF 2007 Rukmini Atmaram Karande and Anr. ..Petitioners. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.V.S.Talkute, Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : JANUARY 22, 2008. DATED : JANUARY 22, 2008. DATED : JANUARY 22, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners-orig.accused are facing prosecution in Sessions Case No.34 of 2005. The said case is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Satara Smt.P.D.Desai. 3. The first prayer in the present Petition is that Sessions Case No.34 of 2005 be transferred from the Court of learned Addl.Sessions Judge ..(2).. Smt.P.D.Desai to any other Sessions Court in Satara. As far as this prayer is concerned, Section 408 of Cr.P.C. is very clear that the Principal Sessions Judge has the power to transfer any case within his session division. Hence it would be appropriate that the petitioners prefer necessary application to the Principal Sessions Judge at Satara. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to prefer necessary application for transfer before the Principal Sessions Court. 4. The second prayer in the Petition is that the petitioners be permitted to examine Bhagwan Tyataba Kolekar and any other witness as their defence witnesses. As far as this prayer is concerned, it is seen that the petitioners have not preferred an application with the said prayer before the trial Court. It would be open to the petitioners to prefer necessary application in respect of this prayer before the trial Court. 5. The third prayer of the petitioners is that one witness Baban Maruti Sarak has been examined by the trial Court and the petitioners did not get ..(3).. an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness. As far as this prayer is concerned, it would be open to the petitioners to prefer necessary application before the trial Court. 6. On the applications being preferred by the petitioners in respect of second and third prayers, as mentioned in paragraphs-4 & 5 above, the trial Court shall consider the said applications and after hearing necessary parties dispose of the same in accordance with law. 7. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)