1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.603 OF 2009. Ishwar S/o Haribhau Marathe ... Petitioner. Versus Nanabhau Hilal Patil and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.P.Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the petitioner Mr.K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2. Mr.N.L.Jadhav, advocate for the Respondent No.1. ... WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.604 OF 2009. Ishwar S/o Haribhau Marathe ... Petitioner. Versus Nanabhau Hilal Patil and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.P.Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the petitioner Mr.K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 served. ... 2 CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 24.08.2009. PER COURT 1. By these petitions, the petitioner challenges orders rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in transfer applications by him vide Criminal Misc. Application No.37/2009 and Cri.Misc.Application No.36/2009. Both the transfer applications were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The petitioner is the original accused No.l in private complaint cases instituted by the Respondent for offence U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The hearing of the private complaint cases is completed. The petitioner sought transfer of the Criminal cases on the ground that the learned Judicial Magistrate was bias against him. It has been alleged that the request for giving opportunity for arguments was rejected and the learned advocate for the petitioners was directed to file written arguments. Though the written argument was submitted, yet, again the learned Judicial 3 Magistrate suo-motu rescheduled the hearing for arguments of the parties. The petitioner further alleged that though the Criminal case was scheduled for judgment, yet, the judgment was not delivered. The petitioner was required to incur expenditure. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, called for report of the learned Judicial Magistrate. The confidential report was considered and thereafter the transfer applications were dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned orders, what emerges from the record is that the learned Judicial Magistrate was unsure of the steps taken after the cases were closed for judgment and, therefore, again rescheduled the same for hearing. Mere giving of opportunity of hearing after filing of the written arguments by the petitioner will not indicate prejudice or bias attitude. There can not be any two opinion that ordinarily expeditious disposal of such cases is required in view of the purport of the provision 4 U/s 138 of the N.I. Act. The examples given in the transfer applications do not sufficiently make out a case so as to warrant inference that the learned Magistrate was biased against the petitioner. 5. Mr.Chapalgaonkar, would submit that calling of the report from the learned Magistrate could be avoided. He invited my attention to "Pushpa Devi Saraf and another Vs. Jai Narain Parasrampuria and others" AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1133. In the given case, the Apex Court observed that the Confidential report should be normally confined to the allegations made against the impartiality or fairness of the Judge and not with respect to the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by him. In the peculiar fact situation of the given case, the Apex Court directed transfer of the case because justification was found to have been given by the Presiding Officer in respect of the orders. The transfer was directed in the interest of the learned Presiding Officer himself. Herein, the fact situation is quite different. The impugned 5 orders do not show that report of the learned Magistrate offered justification for the orders passed. The learned Sessions Judge, noticed that the judgment was not delivered by the learned Magistrate because some new points were to be clarified and were heard in the matter. Considering these aspects, I do not find any substantial reason to infer that the Judicial Magistrate is bias against the petitioner. All said and done, it can not be said that the impugned orders of the learned Sessions Judge are arbitrary or perverse. 6. In the above view of the matters, both the petitions are dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp60309