HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Crl.A.Nos. 23 and 85 of 2001 DATED: 01.02.2010 Crl.A No.23 of 2001 Between:- Kasturi Krishnamurthy .. Appellant/A1 And 1. State rep. By S.I. of Police 2. State of A.P. rep. By Public PRosecutor .. Respondents/ Crl.A.No.85 of 2001 Between:- Sabbella Satyanarayana Reddy .. Appellant/A2 And 1. State rep. By S.I. of Police 2. State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor .. Respondents/ COMMON JUDGMENT:- Since these two Criminal Appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are being taken up together and disposed of by way of this Common Judgment. 2) Crl.A. Nos. 23 and 85 of 2001 by A1 and A2 respectively are directed against the Judgment dated 21.12.2000 in C.C. No.53 of 1997, on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Offences under A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, Vijayawada, whereunder and whereby the accused were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC read with 79(f) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, and accordingly, A1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months, and A2 was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 45 days. 3) Learned counsel representing Sri M.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the appeals, which are filed against the impugned judgment delivered by the Special Court for Trial of Offences under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, Vijayawada, shall have to be filed before appropriate Forum, and not before this Court, since the Special Court is presided over by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, and hence, he prays that appropriate directions may be passed in these matters. 4) The Presiding Officer of the Special Court for Trial of Offences under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, Vijayawada, is equivalent to the category of Judicial First Class Magistrate, which fact is not in dispute. Ordinarily, the present appeals, which are filed by the appellants-accused against convictions and sentences imposed by the Special Court for Trial of offences under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, Vijayawada, would lie to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge. Therefore, the filing of the above two appeals in this Court directly against the impugned judgment, is not in consonance with law in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Sabbineni Venkateswara Rao and Others Vs. S.I. of Police[1] wherein it is held to the following effect: “It is pertinent to note that the words “on trial held by ‘any other Court’” are followed by “in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years” and hence, this provision cannot be taken aid of by the appellants. No doubt, a contention was advanced that this Court as a Constitutional Court or at least while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code, can definitely transfer these matters to the proper Court. Chapter 31 of the Code deals with transfer of criminal cases. Sections 406 and 407 of the Code deal with power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals and powers of High Court to transfer cases and appeals, respectively. When specific provisions are there relating to transfer of cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that normally, the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code cannot be exercised. However, in view of the doubt relating to the forum to which appeals would lie at the relevant point of time the Court being a Special Court, the matters were filed before this Court. In Kolakaluru Rama Sesha Sharma V. State of A.P., wherein an objection was taken by the office as to the provision under which an appeal was sought to be filed before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in a matter of this nature, this Court held that there is no provision under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, as to the forum to which appeals lies, and the Special Court under A.P. Co-operative Societies Act is presided over by a Judicial First Class Magistrate and in the ordinary course, the appeal shall lie to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, and now there is no provision indicating the forum to which the appeal lies and in the circumstances, the ordinary procedure has to be followed, and hence, this Court directs the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada to entertain the appeals and proceed with the cases according to law.” 5) In view of the above principle laid down by this Court, these two Criminal Appeals are directed to be returned to the appellants-accused so as to enable them to present the same before appropriate Court. However, the suspension of sentence granted by this Court in these matters would remain valid for a period of one month from today and thereafter, necessary orders have to be obtained by the appellants from the competent appellate Court. 6) With the above directions, Crl.A.Nos.23 and 85 of 2001 are disposed of. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 1st February, 2010 bcj [1] 2005(1) ALT (Crl.) 284 (A.P.)