The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.31997 of 2011 Date: 05-12-2011 Between: S.S.Phaniseshu ..... Petitioner AND The III Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.B.Gajendra Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: --- The Court made the following : Order: The legality or otherwise of judgment, dated 15-07- 2011, in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2010, is questioned by the petitioner by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is accused in two criminal cases viz., C.C.Nos.158 and 159 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-I Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram. The petitioner was chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court vide judgments, dated 24-02-2010 and 28-12-2010, has convicted the petitioner in both the cases and imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.7 lakhs to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved by those judgments, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal Nos.9 and 49 of 2010 respectively. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram, vide judgments, dated 15-07-2011, allowed Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2010, reversing the judgment of the trial Court in CC.No.159 of 2008, and dismissed Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2010 by confirming the judgment of the trial Court in CC.No.158 of 2008. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition questioning the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2010 on the ground that the appellate Court has committed a serious impropriety in delivering two inconsistent judgments arising out of identical cases. It is trite that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not only discretionary but also extraordinary. The persons, who have effective remedies available under the relevant statutes, are, ordinarily, not permitted to invoke such jurisdiction. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the judgment of the competent Criminal Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The aggrieved parties are provided with statutory remedies. For instance, in the present case, the petitioner has the remedy of filing a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if he feels aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2010. The petitioner also has the remedy of filing an appeal with the leave of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In the face of availability of these remedies, it is inappropriate and impermissible for the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies that are available to him in law. As a sequel, WPMP.No.39765 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 5th December, 2011 LUR