IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18071 of 2011 1. Archana Banarjee wife of Tapas Banarjee of New Panbel, Navi Mumbai, Sector No.4, P.S. Panbel, District Navi Mumbai, Maharastra. 2. Rashmi Goswami wife of Hemant Goswami of Middle Chutiya, P.S. Chutiya, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Raj Kumar Bhushan s/o Sri Ajay Kumar Ghosal of Tilkamanjhi, P.S. Tilkamanjhi, Distt. Bhagalpur. 4. Munmum Ghoshal wife of Sri Ajay Kumar Ghoshal resident of Tilkamanjhi, P.S. Tilka Manjhsi, District- Bhagalpur. … petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ashim Kumar Chatterji son of Sri Sujeet Kumar Chatterji, resident of Mohalla Kotwali Chowk Bettiah, P.S. Bettiah, District West Champaran. .. Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 22.09.2011 This application has been filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 12.5.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Cr. Misc. Transfer No. 49 of 2011 by which the petition filed by the petitioner to transfer the Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2008/ Sessions Trial No. 637 of 2008 from the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge to any other court, has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2 After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material in this application as well as in the counter affidavit, it appears that the trial of Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2008/ Sessions Trial No. 637 of 2008 was going on in the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur where the evidence was concluded and the case was fixed for judgment on 3.2.2011 but due to absence of the accused - petitioner no. 4, Munmum Ghoshal, it could not be delivered. Later on, she surrendered on 28.2.2011 and was taken into custody and the case was fixed for argument on 4.3.2011. On 4.3.2011 the case was adjourned for 10.3.2011 for argument at the instance of accused-petitioners. On 10.3.2011, a petition was filed on behalf of the accused under Section 313 for amendment in their statement and the case was adjourned for 17.3.2011. It further appears that many other cases including this case were transferred to the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge from the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge. In the meantime, the informant filed Transfer Petition No. 38 of 2011 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge and vide order dated 30.3.2011 3 the record of aforesaid session trial was recalled from the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge and transferred to the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge where it was pending for argument. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that prior to transfer of aforesaid sessions trial from the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge to 4th Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 30.3.2011 passed in Transfer Petition No. 38 of 2011, the petitioners were not heard, is not tentable on the ground that the trial of aforesaid Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2008 was made earlier by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge and the case was fixed for argument and the case had only been transferred in administrative capacity. Secondly, according to provision of Section 409 (2) Cr.P.C. the Sessions Judge has power to transfer or withdraw the cases and appeal before the trial of the case or hearing of the appeal as commenced before the additional Sessions Judge. In this case, it appears that trial has already been concluded and the case was fixed for hearing, as such, the learned Sessions Judge had no power to 4 recall the aforesaid sessions trial from the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge and transfer it to the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge and it has been corrected by Transfer Petition No. 38 of 2011, when it came to the notice of learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, aforesaid Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2008 has been recalled from the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge and it has been returned to the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge. It also appears from the record that the said case is to be decided within a period of four months in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 13.01.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 46233 of 2009 and also in view of the order of this Court dated 23.6.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 46233 of 2009, it further appears that 4th Additional Sessions Judge sought extension for conclusion of the Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2008 vide letter dated 12.5.2010 and accordingly, four months further time had been allowed to conclude the trial that time has lapsed. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any 5 ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)