1. Following the view of Mr. Justice Jwala Prasad in H.C. Cases No. 42 and of the learned Judges in Sheodhari Rai v. Jhingur Rai A.I.R. 1925 Pat 918 and Bagh Ali v. Muhammad Din A.I.R.1926 Lah 156 I accept that the expression 'a party interested' in Section 526(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not necessarily mean only a complainant, i.e., a person presenting a 'complaint' as defined in Section 4, Clause (h) of the Code, but may include a Police informant. To this however, following the same authorities, I would join the principle that where the conduct of a case is in the hands of a Public Prosecutor, and where there is a conflict between the Public Prosecutor and 'the party interested,' the right of the former must prevail. This principle derives sup-port from the circumstance that it is the Public Prosecutor and not the informant who is primarily responsible for the conduct of the case. In the present case, the petitioner who applies for the re-transfer of the case is a Forest Official of the Venkata-giri Estate, and he did no more than give information in the course of his official duties.
2. The re-transfer here is opposed both by the Public Prosecutor and by the accused. I am not prepared to say that there were not grounds for the Sub-divisional Magistrate's order, although it may be that they do not appear on the face of his order. It is said that to order a transfer because an accused person apprehends inconvenience at Venkatagiri from the Maharaja's officials and sympathisers will entail the transfer of every case in which the Samasthanam is interested. I agree that that would be an indefensible course to adopt, and I can only express the hope that every such application is closely scrutinised upon its merits. I do not interfere in the present case but dismiss the petition.