Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

These two criminal petitions are filed by the petitioner/ accused in CC Nos.175 and 176 of 2012 dated 30.1.2013. The learned III Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act and Section 379 IPC and after full dressed trial with reference to the evidence on record of PWs.1 to 8, Exs.P1 to P13 and MOs.1 to 4 in CC No. 175 of 2012 and PWs.1 to 6, Exs.P1 to P7, and MOs.1 and 2 in CC No. 176 of 2012 convicted the accused for the said offences. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for each offence and both sentences shall run concurrently and by giving set off of the period undergone by the accused from 8.1.2012 to 13.1.2012 and 12.6.2012 to 30.1.2013 in CC No. 175 of 2012 and from 7.7.2012 to 30.1.2013 in CC No. 176 of 2012. Impugning the two conviction judgments respectively on 30.1.2013, the accused maintained two appeals before the District and Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry under Section 374 Cr.P.C. The office of Sessions Judge has taken objection on maintainability of two appeals particularly for the offence under Section 66 of I.T Act saying there is Cyber Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CAT') constituted having jurisdiction. It is impugning the same, these two applications are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. Section 482 Cr.P.C., reads as under:

Sec. 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

3. The grounds urged in the applications impugning said office objection of the Court of Sessions of the respective Sessions Division, are that the learned Sessions Judge erred in not entertaining the respective appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. and also application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., to suspend the sentence or order as the case may be by further saying the Tribunal's jurisdiction is no way to be invoked against the trial Court's conviction judgment particularly for the offence under Section 66 I.T. Act for no such enabling provision to the Tribunal to entertain the appeal and hence to set aside said objection of the learned Sessions Judge and to give a direction to number the appeals if otherwise in order.

4. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned amicus curiae appointed by this Court by name Sri B. Nairn Kumar and also learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record.

5. Now the points that arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether the learned Magistrate can try any offence under I.T. Act, particularly covered by Chapter-XI Sections 65 to 78 including the subsections in between Chapter-XIII Sections 84(B) and (C) and 85 of the I.T. Act, amended by Act 10 of 2009 w.e.f 27.10.2009 and if so, along with any other IPC offences or offence of any other special law and if so, in the event of conviction by the trial Court to which form' the appeal lies to say whether it is to the Court of Sessions or CAT?

(ii) to what result?

Point No.1:

6. Section 57 of the Information Technology Act, 2009 reads as under:

Section 57 - Appeal to Cyber Appellate Tribunal.-

(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an order made by Controller or an adjudicating officer under this Act may prefer an appeal to a Cyber Appellate Tribunal (CAT) having jurisdiction in the matter.

(2) No appeal shall lie to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal from an order made by an adjudicating officer with the consent of the parties.

(3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period of forty five days from the date on which a copy of the order made by the Controller or the adjudicating officer is received by the person aggrieved and it shall be in suc