THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 7010 & 7011 OF 2010. COMMON ORDER : The present Criminal Petitions are filed by the same petitioner before this Court challenging the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2007 on the file of the Court of III- Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. The facts in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2007 are that PW- 1 is the resident of 8th Incline Colony, Godavarikhani. The accused is resident of Gunjapadugu village of Manthani Mandal. The accused has collected Rs.1,50,000/- net cash from PW-1 promising to provide jobs in Railway Department and in Judicial Department as Ticket Collector and Attender respectively and the accused also executed documents in favour of PW-1 in evidence of the amounts received by him, as if he has borrowed the same. Since he failed to provide jobs to the son and son-in-law of PW-1, he promised to return Rs.1,50,000/- but he neither secured jobs nor returned the amounts and thereby cheated PW-1 and therefore he is liable for punishment for the offence under section 420 IPC. The facts in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2007 are that the complainant is resident of Mandamarri of Adilabad district and the accused is resident of Gunjapadugu village. According to the prosecution, the offence took place at Gunjapadugu village and that the complainant was running a pan shop at Mandamarri and the accused has approached the complainant and stated that he would provide the Attender job in the Court within three months for which he is need of Rs.1,04,000/- as an expenditure and assured him the job. Believing his representation, the complainant had paid Rs.4,000/- in the month of November 2002, Rw.50,000/- one month thereafter and again he paid Rs.50,000/- one month thereafter but the accused failed to get job to him. The accused has also collected Rs.26,000/- from Thirupathi and Shankar by promising them to provide jobs and therefore the complainant and his friends approached the accused but he replied that there were no jobs and thereby they requested the accused for return of the amount but the accused threatened them and therefore they have no other go except lodging complaint with the police. The petitioner was convicted in both the cases by the trial court in CC.No.323 of 2004 and CC.No.628 of 2003 for a period of one year and six months simple imprisonment and to suffer one year simple imprisonment respectively. Again which the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2007 and 75 of 2007 on the file of the Court of III-Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. While pendency of the appeals before the appellate court, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to transfer the case from the file of the appellate court to some other court. This Court also passed an order of transfer on 29-10- 2008 transferring both the criminal appeals from the appellate court to another court. But the same was not properly communicated to the appellate court. Hence, the appellate court convicted the petitioner and confirmed the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court on 12-12-2008. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Revision before this Court. The said Criminal Revisions are Crl.RC.No. 257 and 258 of 2009 respectively. Challenging the order passed by the appellate court by which the appellate court convicted the accused without taking into consideration the order of transfer passed by this Court. The said revisions disposed of by this Court after calling for an explanation from the appellate court. This court after satisfying itself disposed of the criminal revisions. Only in connection with the fact of non-communication of the transfer order. The present applications are filed by the petitioner challenging the order of conviction since already appeal is not in vogue and also revision filed against the said conviction is disposed of by this Court. The points for consideration is: 1) Whether the Criminal Petitions are maintainable when the conviction was confirmed by the appellate court, while pendency of order for transfer ? 2) Whether these Criminal Petitions can be entertained ? In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the very fact for filing of transfer application before the High Court, taking into consideration the threat to the petitioner before the appellate court and in the appellate court the petitioner’s counsel was not able to place the arguments in appropriate time. Without hearing the arguments, the order was passed by the appellate court. Hence, the present conviction and confirmation of sentence by the appellate court amounts to abuse of process of law since the order of transfer by the High Court was not communicated in proper time. An opportunity to the petitioner should has not been given to raise the same point before the Court. Under section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court have inherent powers to dispose of the matters when it is apparently shown that there is abuse of process of law by the Subordinate Courts. In the present case on hand, this Court is of the view that these petitions can be entertained in view of the fact due to communication gap the petitioners have right to subjected to prejudice. To avoid the said prejudice, this Court can dispose of the matter by invoking section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner’s counsel confine his arguments only on the question of sentence. Accordingly, this Court perused the entire record and also heard the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel. In both the cases, the petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 420 IPC and in CC.No.323 of 2007 the petitioner was convicted for one and half years simple imprisonment and in CC.No.628 of 2003 he was convicted for one year simple imprisonment. Considering the lapse of time and also the petitioner was not given opportunity to place his arguments before the appellate court, this Court is of the view that to meet the ends of justice the conviction imposed by the trial court is confirmed and as far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, the same is modified to that of the period of detention already undergone by him. With the above modification of sentence, these Criminal Petitions are disposed of accordingly. _______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 04-8-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 7010 & 7011 OF 2010. COMMON ORDER 09-8-2010 I s L