JUDGMENT These are all appeals filed before this Court by the accused persons aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court for trial of offences under A P. Co-operative Societies Act, Vijayawada. It is not in controversy that though the Court is styled as "Special Court", the Metropolitan Magistrate, equivalent to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, alone is the Presiding Officer of this Special Court for trial of offences under the A P. Co-operative Societies Act, at Vijayawada. 2. Sri Sal Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, representing the appellants in certain matters, would contend that the Special Court was constituted by virtue of a Notification under Section 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, here-in-after. in short referred to as "the Code". The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 372 and 374 of the Code and would contend that in the light of the fact that the Court is a Special Court, the appeals were preferred to this Court and they were entertained. The learned Senior Counsel also now draws the attention of this Court to the view expressed by this Court in Kolakaluru Rama Sesha Sharma v. State of A.P.1 and would contend that these appeals may have to be returned to be presented to proper Court, and inasmuch as because of the ambiguity at the relevant point of time, accused persons had approached this Court and it is a just and proper reason and in the light of the direction issued by this Court in Kolakaluru Rama Sesha Sharma v. State of A.P. (1 supra), justice requires that these parties should be given liberty to approach the proper appellate Court. 3. Sri Ravi Kumar Tholeti, the Counsel representing certain appellants, and Sri K. Chidambaram and Durga Prasad, representing certain appellants in these appeals, advanced arguments and had adopted the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel and would further contend that this Court as a Constitutional Court, in the interest of justice, can definitely transfer these appeals to the proper Court, or at least, exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code. 4. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had also placed reliance on a decision in Kolakaluru Rama Sesha Sharma v. State of A.P. (1 supra) and in all fairness would contend that in view of the doubt entertained by the accused at the relevant point of time, these appeals were presented and this decision was rendered subsequent to presentation of these appeals. 5. Section 18 of the Code reads as under: Special Metropolitan Magistrates:- "(1) The High Court may, if requested by the Central or State Government so to do, confer upon any person who holds or has held any post under the Government, all or any of the powers conferred or conferrable by or under this Code on a Metropolitan Magistrate, in respect to particular cases or to particular classes of cases in any metropolitan area within its local jurisdiction. Provided that no such power shall be conferred on a person unless he possesses such qualification or experience in relation to legal affairs as the High Court may, by rules, specify . (2) Such Magistrates shall be called Special Metropolitan Magistrates and shall be appointed for such term, not exceeding one year at a time, as the High Court may by general or special order, direct. (3) The High Court or the State Government, as the case may be, may empower any Special Metropolitan Magistrate to exercise, in any local area outside the metropolitan area, the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class." 6. The Notification issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh constituting a Special Court reads as under: "In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, hereby accord sanction for the constitution of the two Special Courts one at Hyderabad and another at Vijayawada for the speedy trial of offences under the Act relating to Cooperative Societies. The Jurisdiction of the Special Courts shall be as follows: (i) The Special Court constituted at Hyderabad shall have the jurisdiction to try the cases arising in the following Districts. (1) Adilabad (2) Warangal (3) Nizamabad (4) Karimnagar (5) Medak (6) Mahaboobnagar (7) Nalgonda (8) Ranga Reddy (9) Hyderabad (10) Khammam (11) Chittoor (12) Anantapur (13) Cuddapah and (14) Kurnool. (ii) The Special Court Constituted at Vijayawada shall have the jurisdiction to try the cases arising in the following Districts. (1) Adilabad (2) Warangal (3) Nizamabad (4) Karimnagar (5) Medak (6) Mahaboobnagar (7) Nalgonda (8) Ranga Reddy (9) Hyderabad (10) Khammam (11) Chittoor (12) Anantapur (13) Cuddapah and (14) Kurnool. (ii) The Special Court Constituted at Vijayawada shall have the jurisdiction to try the cases arising in the following Districts. (1) Srikakulam (2) Visakhapatnam (3) Vizianagaram (4) West Godavari (5) East Godavari (6) Krishna (7) Guntur (8) Prakasam and (9) Nellore." 7. Section 372 of the Code dealing with no appeal shall lie unless and otherwise provided, specifies that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal Court, except as provided for by the Code or by any. other law for the time being in force. 8. Section 374 of the Code deals with appeals from convictions. Section 374(2) of the Code specifies any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial to the High Court. 9. 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. 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. (1 supra), 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. 10. It is brought to the notice of this Court that when these appeals were presented before this Court, the decision in Kolakaluru Rama Sesha Sharma v. State of A.P.(1 supra) was not available and the same was rendered subsequent to the presentation of these appeals. In the light of the facts and circumstances, there cannot be any doubt that these appeals do not lie to this Court, and these appeals lie to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, the appellate Court. 11. Now, the question is whether these matters are to be returned to the appellants to present them before the proper Court, giving liberty to the appellants to move appropriate applications for condonation of delay as per law, or, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, or whether an appropriate direction is to be Issued by this Court to entertain the appeals which would be returned by this Court, without going Into the question of limitation in view of the facts referred to supra. This Court is of the opinion that in view of some ambiguity and in view of the fact that a Special Court had dealt with these matters, under the bona fide impression that the appeals would lie to this Court only, these appeals were presented by the appellants/accused and the said litigations are being prosecuted by them before this Court under the same bonafide belief, especially, in the light of the fact that at the relevant point of time the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, was not entertaining appeals on the ground that the learned Judge I had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. 12. In the light of the said' facts' and circumstances, it would be just and proper to direct the office to return the papers to the respective appellants-accused, so as to enable them to present these appeals before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and in view of the peculiar facts, a further direction is issued that the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, shall entertain these appeals and proceed further in accordance with law. Inasmuch as it is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellants-accused were enlarged on bail by this Court and in view of the fact that these matters are being returned, the appellants-accused are at liberty to move appropriate applications for bail, suspension of sentence, or for other ancillary reliefs, before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge. Vijayawada, and the said applications shall be disposed of in accordance with law. 13. These Criminal Appeals are disposed of accordingly.