1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO. 1812 OF 2008 DIST.: MUMBAI Anees Ahmed Hanif Ahmed Shaikh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan for the Petitioner Dr. F.R. Shaikh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 P.C.:- The petitioner's case is that he is facing a trial, and 14 witnesses have been examined, and, as a matter of fact, no witness remains to be examined, except certain witnesses who have to be cross-examined only. The learned Judge hearing the matter was transferred, and, therefore, the petitioner made an application before the learned Principal Sessions Judge for transfer of the case to the same learned Judge who was hearing the matter. The transfer application has been rejected. This petition is filed impugning the aforesaid order of the learned Court rejecting the aforesaid application seeking transfer. 2. We do no find that the petitioner has any right whatsoever to 2 choose a Judge for trial of the petitioner's case. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows this Court to direct continuance of the trial before the Judge, who was conducting the trial before his transfer. 3. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.