( 1 ) THE petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad. He filed the writ petition seeking the following relief:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This Hon ble Court may be pleased to issue notice and call for records and set aside conviction an sentence of six months R. I. and fine of rs. 1,000/- for the offence under sec. 304-A IPC and fine of Rs. 500. 00 for the offence under Section 337 IPC in the C. C. No. 276 of 1999 of the file of ii Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, ultimately Confirmed in Crl. R. C. No. 207 of 2001 vide Order dated 15-12-2002 on the file of this Hon ble Court by issuing a writ certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction as the Hon ble Court deems fit and proper. . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 2 ) IN a nutshell, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner was charged with an offence under Section 304 - A and 337 of the indian Penal Code, 1960 (IPC) He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00 for the offence under section 337 ipc. The judgment of the learned I! Additional Magistrate who tried the petitioner was assailed before the learned III additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge for the trial of cases under the Essential commodities Act in criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2000. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence to six months imprisonment. The petitioner s Criminal revision Case No. 207 of 2001 before this court was dismissed confirming the judgment of the appellate Court. But still the petitioner filed the writ petition raising the ground that all the Courts have not dealt with the petitioner s case properly and did not appreciate the evidence on record.

( 3 ) WHEN the writ petition was presented in the Registry on 28-10-2003, the Registry raised the following objection:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The above wpsr sought to be filed, praying this hon ble Court to issue notice and call for records and set aside conviction and sentence of six months R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 for the offence under sec. 304-A IPC and fine of Rs. 500. 00 for the offence under Section 337 IPC in c. C. No. 276 of 1999 on the file of , II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad ultimately confirmed in Crl. R. C. No. 207 of 2001 vide Order dated 15-12-2002 on the file of this Hon ble Court by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order of direction as the Hon ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to allow the writ petition with costs. The office returned the case with the following objection:"please clarify as to the maintainability of writ when there is an alternative remedy available in criminal Procedure Code". The learned counsel for the petition has represented the case with the following endorsement. "the Criminal Courts have no power to review its own orders under crl. R. C. As substantial justice is denied to the petitioner, petition under Article 226 of Constitution of india gives powers to adjudicate". Submitted for orders as to the maintainability of the writ petition.

( 4 ) THE matter was listed before this court on 7-11-2003, 10-11-2003 and 11-11-2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. Bichaiah submits that the writ petition is maintainable to agitate the correctness of the judgment of the trial court, appellate Court as well as High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. He also placed reliance on the judgments in 1937 calcutta Law Times 925 and Pranakrushna v. Harekrishna

( 5 ) IN exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, it is always possible for this Court to quash a criminal case pending at the stage of trial. Also it is possible to set aside any judgment of the competent Judicial magistrate of i Class or competent Sessions Court if such judgment is passed without juris