IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2313 OF 2007 Rameshwar Jalindar Manjare..... ...... ......Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... ...... .....Respondent. Mr.Amol A. Deshpande, Adv. For the petitioner. Ms.P.P.Shinde, APP for the State. Mr.Balkrishna D. Joshi, Adv. For the intervnor. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 31/1/08 PC: Sessions Case Nos.34 and 35 of 2001 were pending on the file of additional Sessions Judge, Solapur the Presiding Officer of which was Shri P.V.Birajdar. The District and Sessions Judge was transferred and hence Shri Birajdar was acting as the Sessions Judge. While acting as in-charge Sessions Judge he passed an administrative order and transferred the two cases pending on his file to the District Judge No.II-Additional Sessions Judge Shri K.R.Deosarkar for hearing and disposal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Daulatrao s/o Dashrath Dhonde V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2002 ALL MR (Cri.) 1370. In the said case the division bench has held that the Sessions Judge cannot transfer a part heard matter from the file of additional 1 sessions Judge as the Sessions Judge is not superior to the additional sessions Judge when it relates to judicial powers. However it is also held that the Sessions Judge has administrative powers to transfer the matter. In the present case the Sessions Judge has not withdrawn the cases from any other Court. As he was administratively finding it difficult to deal with the said two cases, acting as Sessions Judge administratively directed the transfer of the two cases to some other Judge. I do not find any illegality committed by the in-charge Sessions judge in transferring cases from his file to some other Court. It will not be out of place to mention that Shri P.V.Birajdar has not recorded the evidence in these two cases. It appears that at the argument stage cases had come to his Court. No case is made out to warrant interference with the administrative order. No prejudice is shown to have been caused to the present petitioner. Hence I decline to interfere with the impugned order. In the result writ petition is summarily dismissed. 31.1.08 2