application was made by the petitioner for setting aside the
said order which came to be rejected. A revision application
was filed in the Sessions Court against the said order. The
Sessions court allowed the said application in revision and
directed the petitioner to remain present before the trial
court on 1st March 2008. On 1st March 2008, an application
for adjournment was submitted by the petitioner through his
son on the ground that the petitioner was indisposed. The
learned Judge directed that a warrant be issued against the
petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner engaged the services
of new lawyers. On 17th March 2008, the case was adjourned
till 28th March 2008. On that day, an application was made
for grant of adjournment on the ground that one of two
Advocates engaged by the petitioner was suffering from
Chickenpox. The said application was rejected and the order
of "no cross" was again passed by the learned Judge.
Thereafter, the learned Judge proceeded to record the
statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. An application was made on 31st March 2008 for setting
aside the order of ‘no cross’. The said application was also
rejected. It is alleged in the transfer application filed by
the petitioner that though an application for adjournment was
made on the ground of ill-health of the Advocate, the learned
Judge disbelieved the statement of the Advocate and
immediately passed an order of ‘No cross’. It is, therefore
alleged that the learned Judge is biased against the
