Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J. and Caspersz, JJ.
1. Without in any way detracting from the doctrine, which we accept as sound, that a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused that he will not have a fair trial is a sufficient ground for transfer, we at the same time hold that in applying that doctrine regard must be had to the circumstances of each case. The mere fact that in another case, on other evidence, the Sessions Judge may have come to a particular conclusion is not in itself a sufficient ground for transfer: and that has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Asimaddi v. Govinda Baidyn (1897) I.C.W.N. 426. On the facts of this case we hold that there should not be a transfer. We feel confident that the learned Sessions Judge, in dealing with the case now under consideration, will not allow his mind to be in any way influenced by any evidence that was adduced before him in the previous case or by any opinion which he then formed on that evidence, and that he will deal with the case without any kind of bias by reason of his decision in the former case. We, therefore, on the facts of this case, discharge the Rule.