HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8617 OF 2009 DATED.30-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.2 (For short, ‘A-2’) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order dated 13-10-2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.355 of 2008, registered for offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad 2. Whereas the Petitioner is A-2, the Respondent No.2 is the complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. A-2 was tried for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC in C.C. No.378 of 2002, on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, and convicted and sentenced under that count against which he preferred Criminal Appeal No.355 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad which was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Challenging the said order, he has preferred this Criminal Revision Case No.1035 of 2011 before this Court. The appeal was posted to 07.09.2009 but on that date he could not appear before the appellate Court and thereby the Court issued NBW against him. Later, on his behalf Civil M.P. No.721 of 2009 was filed to recall the NBW but it was dismissed on 09.09.2009. Then, on his behalf Tr.Crl.M.P. No.355 of 2008 was filed before this Court to transfer the case to any other competent Court and on 25.09.2009 the matter was stayed. On 13.10.2009 when the matter was called on his behalf a memo was filed indicating about the transfer application and also about calling for a report in the matter, but the Court forfeited the bond and issued distress warrant and notices to his sureties. 4. Heard the learned counsel for A-2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 5. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is violated and is not sustainable and liable to be set aside? 6. By virtue of Section 447 Cr.P.C. when the accused failed to appear before the Court and the learned Sessions Judge wanted to take necessary action, necessary proceedings were to be opened and he was to be examined giving opportunity of being heard before taking necessary action in the matter but that procedure was not followed by the learned Sessions Judge. However, significantly, the Appeal was disposed of, against which, the Criminal Revision Case was also preferred. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 13-10-2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.355 of 2008. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:30-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 210 CRIMINAL PETITION No.8617 OF 2009 December, 30, 2011 DSH