IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH (9TH) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.12197 of 2010 Between: Smt. Ch. Padmavathi … Petitioner And: The State, rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.12197 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the records and the explanation dated 10.01.2011 received from the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam, explanation dated 27.12.2010 received from the learned Judge, Family Court cum Additional District Judge, Khammam and the explanation dated 24.12.2010 from the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhadrachalam. 2. The factual background that gave raise to filing of the criminal petition is narrated in the order dated 07.12.2010 passed by this Court, while directing release of the petitioner, who is alleged to have been unauthorisedly remanded to Central Prison in execution of the committal warrant issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhadrachalam in pursuance of the orders passed in Crl.A.No.23 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court cum Additional District Judge, Khammam, though according to her, the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court were set aside and consequently she was acquitted. The above said order dated 07.12.2010 passed by this Court may be read as part of the present order. 3. As it appeared to be a serious case of violation of right to liberty i.e., illegal detention of the petitioner by name Ch. Padmavathi, the explanation of the learned Judge, Family Court, Khammam and the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhadrachalam were called for in the above said order. A perusal of the above explanations reveal that several irregularities and serious lapses have taken place in the matter, which ultimately led to unauthorized detention of the petitioner Smt. Ch. Padmavathi, for a period of about one week i.e., from 30.11.2010 the date of remand to the Central Prison in pursuance of the committal warrant, till her release in pursuance of the order dated 07.12.2010 passed by this Court, thereby curtailing her liberty. 4. The explanations received from the Courts below would disclose the existence of two contradictory judgments in the same matter i.e., Crl.A.No.23 of 2008, one of dismissal of the appeal on 05.05.2009 thereby confirming the conviction and sentence (in pursuance of which NBW was issued and executed) and the other judgment dated 04.12.2009 allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentence, resulting in acquittal of the petitioner. The existence of two contradictory judgments of two different dates in the same matter and by the same Court is rather intriguing. That apart, it is unfortunate that in spite of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared before the lower Court bringing the factum of allowing of the appeal on 04.12.2009, immediately after the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhadrachalam remanded the petitioner to the Central Prison on the same day i.e., 30.11.2010, no remedial steps were taken by the learned Magistrate to prevent the unauthorized detention and on the other hand returned the memo filed by the defence counsel on the next day. The learned Magistrate in his explanation virtually pleads helplessness, which cannot be appreciated. 5. The explanation received further disclose several lapses and delays that have occurred in the matter of transmission of the copies of the judgments and lower court records by the appellate court to the trial Court and in the matter of mixing the copies of the orders in the relevant case files and also in the matter of correspondence between the courts, adversely reflecting on the concerned staff members in the matter of discharge of their duties. 6. The explanation received from the learned Judge, Family Court as to what might have been happened during her predecessor’s time i.e., Sri Mortha Ramadasu (presently working as III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad) appears to be based on surmises. It is only the concerned Judge, namely Sri M. Ramadasu, who can explain as to how two contradictory judgments in the same matter i.e., Crl.A.No.23 of 2008 came into existence, one dismissing the appeal on 05.05.2009 and the other allowing the appeal on 04.12.2009. Further, as seen from the letter dated 05.03.2010 addressed by the then I Additional District Judge, Khammam, FAC, Judge, Family court (copy of which is filed as a material paper along with the criminal petition), the existence of two contradictory judgments in the matter was also noticed by the I Additional District Judge, but however no steps were taken by him also to put the record straight. 7. In view of serious nature of the matter, which resulted in illegal detention of the petitioner, Smt. Ch. Padmavathi, in spite of acquittal, thereby depriving her valuable right to liberty for a period of over one week and having regard to fact that the explanations received from the concerned Courts are totally unsatisfactory, it is considered in the interest of administration of justice that necessary enquiry may perhaps is required to be conducted into the matter for appropriate action against the concerned. Hence, the Registrar (Vigilance) is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for necessary directions in the matter. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be awarded due compensation for deprival of her liberty owing to illegal detention in the central prison, Warangal for over a week. It is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies available under law in that regard. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned docket order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhadrachalam in CC No.996 of 2006 is set aside and the conviction warrant issued by the learned Magistrate is recalled. 10. The criminal petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.02.2011 bss