Dipak Saha Ray, J. - (1.) THE present case arises out of an application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is directed against the order dated 16.05.2011 passed by the Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 26 of 2011 arising out of S.T. Case No. 1(9) 2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 662 of 2007 u/s. 325/308 of the Indian Penal Code rejecting the prayer of the petitioner/accused person herein for transferring the case from the Court at the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract, 1st Court, Tamluk to any other Court for trial.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the present case are, in a nutshell, as follows : One Criminal Case bearing Tamluk P.S. case No. 188 of 2007 dated 22.09.2007 u/s. 325/308 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated against the petitioner herein for assaulting one Kalpana Majhi. Police investigated the case and submitted charge -sheet. Thereafter, the said case was transferred to the Court of the Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Purba Medinipur for trial. Subsequently, on 24.11.2010 two witnesses were present. After examination -in -chief of one of the said witnesses, a petition for an adjournment u/s. 231(2) Cr.P.C was filed for deferring the cross -examination of the said witness till examination of other public witnesses. But the Ld. Court rejected that prayer with some comments and discharged the witness without giving the opportunity to cross -examine the said witness. It is alleged that the said order dated 16.05.2011 thus suffers from inherent impropriety and as such the instant application has been filed for setting aside and/or quashing the said order and for transferring the case from the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 1st Court, Tamluk to any other Court of the same division. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that on account of the observation made in the order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Purba Medinipur, the accused/petitioner herein apprehended that she would not get justice if the case is not transferred from the said Court to any other Court. It is further contended that the Ld. Sessions Judge had ample jurisdiction to transfer that case under the provisions of Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) NOW , on perusal of the impugned order dated 16.05.2011 with reference to Section 408 and 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it appears that after commencement of trial, the Ld. Sessions Judges have got no jurisdiction to recall any case from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge.;