R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is filed for recalling or reviewing the orders passed by this court on 20-2-1998 in Crl. Revision Case No. 119 of 1998 allowing the said revision case even at the admission stage and setting aside the orders of the iv Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad dated 13-11-1997 passed in Crl. MP No. 719 of 1997 insofar as such orders relate to suspension of orders of conviction of the first accused who is the present petitioner (S. P. S. Omkarnath) passed by the trial Court in CC 374/1995 on the file of XXII metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE present petitioner was convicted by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494-AIPC. Questioning such orders of conviction and sentence the petitioner had filed Criminal Petition (sic. Appeal) no. 499/1997 before the IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. He also filed a petition in Crl. MP No. 719/97 before the appellate Court under section 389 (1) Cr. P. C. seeking suspension of the orders of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial Court. The said petition was allowed by the appellate Court by orders dated 13-11-1997 thereby suspending the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court pending disposal of the criminal appeal. Questioning the said orders the de facto complainant who is the second respondent in the present petition filed Crl. Revision Case 119/1998 before this Court. When the said revision case came up for admission, after hearing the petitioner (de facto complainant) therein and the learned public Prosecutor and without issuing notice to the accused who was shown as first respondent therein the orders dated 20-2-1998 were passed by this court allowing the Criminal Revision Case 119/98 and setting aside the orders passed by the appellate Court in so far as they relate to the suspension of orders of conviction observing that the appellate Court had erred in suspending the orders of conviction passed by the trial Court. The present Criminal miscellaneous Petition is now filed by the accused No. 1 for recalling or reviewing the said orders contending that he was not given opportunity by the Court before the above said orders were passed by this Court on 20-2-1998; that the appellate Court has got jurisdiction even to suspend the orders of conviction and sentence pending disposal of the appeal under the provisions of Section 389 (1) Cr. P. C. and that therefore, the said orders may therefore be recalled or reviewed.

( 3 ) HEARD the Counsel for the petitioner accused and the Counsel for the second respondent de facto complainant and also the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent.

( 4 ) IT is clear from a perusal of the earlier orders of this Court dated 20-2-1998 that when the Criminal Revision Case came up for admission, no notice was issued to the accused who was shown as the first respondent in the revision case and without hearing him the said orders were passed setting aside the orders of suspension relating to conviction passed against him by the appellate Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in V. Sundararami Reddi vs. State and the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang, in support of his contention that even the orders of the conviction passed by the trial Court can be suspended in suitable case under section 389 (1) Cr. PC pending disposal of the appeal. The present petitioner who is the accused and is a Government servant working as Engineer, and in case the orders of conviction are not suspended, he is likely to face suspension from his service even before the appeal is disposed of on merits by the appellate Court. In view of all such circumstances and in view of the above cited judgments of this Court and of the Supreme Court it is felt that it will be in the interests of justice to recall the earlier orders dated 20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document