Raj Mani Chauhan,J.;- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the documents available on record. 2. This petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Court No. 13, District Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 238 of 1996, under Sections 302, 323, 324 I.P.C., Police Station Gosaiganj, District Sultanpur whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrant against the accused. 3. At this stage, learned A.G.A. raised preliminary objection that the petition moved by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code is not maintainable. In view of the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. the only question that crops up for consideration before this Court is "whether the present petition moved by the petitioner is maintainable ?" 4. The facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that on the written report of complainant Suresh Pratap, son of Sampat Verma, resident of village Saurali, Police Station Gosainganj, police of police station Gosainganj, District Sultanpur registered a case under sections 302, 323, 324 I.P.C. at Crime no. 220 of 1994 against the accused. The Investigating Officer after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet against the accused in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur under Sections 302, 323, 324 I.P.C. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offences on the basis of charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial which gave rise to Sessions Trial No.238 of 1996 State Vs Kamlapati and others. The case was transferred by the Sessions Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-III for trial. The hearing of Sessions Trial was concluded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the trial was fixed on 24.08.2010 for delivery of judgment. On that date, the accused-petitioner was absent while the co-accused Dhoodh Nath was present. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, pronounced the judgment holding both the accused guilty under Sections 302, 323, 324 I.P.C., consequently, he ordered for cancellation of their bail bonds, discharged the sureties of the accused and took the accused Dhoodh Nath in custody to hear him on the point of sentence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, pronounced the judgment holding both the accused guilty under Sections 302, 323, 324 I.P.C., consequently, he ordered for cancellation of their bail bonds, discharged the sureties of the accused and took the accused Dhoodh Nath in custody to hear him on the point of sentence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after giving an opportunity to accused Dhoodh Nath for hearing on the point of sentence convicted and sentenced him to undergo for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 302 I.P.C., to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 323 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 324 I.P.C. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further directed that in case accused fails to pay the amount of fine he will further undergo imprisonment for two years. He ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrant against the accused-petitioner Kamlapati Verma alias Dhakelu who was absent. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the co-accused Dhoodhnath had moved transfer application before the learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur for transfer of above Sessions Trial from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Sultanpur to any other court which was rejected by him. However, learned Sessions Judge had directed the learned Additional Sessions Judge to hear the arguments of the parties on 23.08.2010 and thereafter dispose of the Sessions trial accordingly but the learned Additional Sessions Judge in utter violation of the direction of learned Sessions Judge did not afford any opportunity of hearing to learned counsel for the parties; rather he pronounced the judgment without hearing the parties. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took the co-accused Dhoodh Nath in custody. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held both the accused i.e. accused-petitioner and co-accused Dhoodh Nath guilty under Sections 302, 323 and 324 I.P.C. He convicted and sentenced the co-accused Dhoodh Nath as mentioned above. The accused petitioner was absent, therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrant against him while the learned Additional Sessions Judge was expected to dispensed with the attendance of the accused-petitioner. The order of issuing non-bailable warrant against the petitioner is, therefore, illegal and is liable to be quashed. 6. The accused petitioner was absent, therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrant against him while the learned Additional Sessions Judge was expected to dispensed with the attendance of the accused-petitioner. The order of issuing non-bailable warrant against the petitioner is, therefore, illegal and is liable to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument has placed reliance on the cases of Madhuban Vs State of U.P. reported in 2008 (5) ALJ 448 decided by this Court and Jeewan and others Vs State of Rajasthan, reported in 2000 (2) JIC 845 (SC) decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. opposed the petition on the ground that the learned court had fixed the trial on 24.08.2010 for pronouncement of judgment. It is not borne out from the record that the order of learned Sessions Judge directing the learned Additional Sessions Judge to hear the arguments of learned counsel for the parties on 23.08.2010 was communicated to him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, pronounced the judgment on the date the trial was fixed for pronouncement of judgement i.e. on 24.08.2010. Since the accused-petitioner was absent on that date, therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge had no option except to issue non-bailable warrant against him. The impugned order of issuing non-bailable warrant against the accused-petitioner does not suffer from any illegality which does not call for any interference. 8. Learned A.G.A further submits that the accused who has been held guilty under Sections 302, 323, 324 I.P.C has moved the present application under Section 482 of the Code after pronouncement of judgment, which is highly belated. At this stage, the petition under Section 482 of the Code is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. The accused-petitioner can avail the statutory remedy challenging the finding of conviction in appeal as provided under the Code. 9. Learned A.G.A in support of his argument has placed reliance on the case of Arun Shanker Shukla Vs State of U.P. and others, reported in (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 146 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 10. I have given active consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. as well as gone through the case laws cited by learned counsel for the parties. 11. 10. I have given active consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. as well as gone through the case laws cited by learned counsel for the parties. 11. As regards the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts of those cases were different from the facts of the present case. On the other hand, in the case cited by the learned A.G.A., the facts were that the trial court had pronounced the judgment of conviction against the accused and fixed the next date for hearing on the point of sentence. On the next date, the accused did not attend the court, consequently, the trial court had passed order for issuance of non-bailable warrant against the accused. The accused moved petition under Section 482 of the Code challenging the order of issuing non-bailable warrant against him passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court entertained the petition and stayed the further proceedings pending before the trial court. The informant, thereafter, filed SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court disapproved the order passed by the High Court and held that the petition under Section 482 of the Code at this stage was not maintainable as the accused had got statutory remedy to prefer an appeal against his conviction. The Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the scope and limit of the inherent power of the High Court conferred under Section 482 of the Code and held that the High Court while exercising the inherent power as conferred under Section 482 of the Code may pass any order to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the "abuse of process of law" or " to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law including procedural law and not otherwise. The inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. The inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court finds place in para 2 of the judgement which is being extracted here below:- "2. It appears that unfortunately the High Court by exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short the Code) has prevented the flow of justice on the alleged contention of the convicted accused that it was polluted by so called misconduct of the judicial officer. It is true that under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of the process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law including procedural law and not otherwise. Further, inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. It is well settled that inherent power is not to be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code or if its exercise would infringe any specific provision of the Code. In the present case the High Court overlooked the procedural law which empowered the convicted accused to prefer statutory appeal against conviction of the offence. High Court has intervened at an uncalled for stage and soft-pedaled the course of justice at a very crucial stage of the trial." 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the accused had been convicted was not maintainable as the accused had got efficacious alternative remedy to file an appeal against conviction. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the accused had been convicted was not maintainable as the accused had got efficacious alternative remedy to file an appeal against conviction. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court finds place in para 9 of the judgment, which is being extracted here below:- 13. "9.The order passed by the High Court entertaining the petition of the convicted accused under Section 482 of the Code is, on the face of it, illegal erroneous and to say the least, unfortunate. It was known to the High Court that the trial court passed proceedings to the effect that final judgment and order convicting the accused were pronounced by the trial court. It was also recorded by the trial court that as the accused were absent, the court had issued non-bailable warrants. In such a situation, instead of directing the accused to remain present before the Court for resorting to the steps contemplated by the law for passing the sentence, the High Court has stayed further proceedings including the operation of the non-bailable warrants issued by the trial court. It is disquieting that High Court has overlooked the important legal aspect that accused have a right of appeal against the order of conviction purported to have been passed by the trial court In such circumstances, the High Court ought not to have entertained a petition under Section 482 of the Code and stonewalled the very efficacious alternative remedy of appeal as provided in the Code. Merely because the accused made certain allegations against the trial judge the substantive law cannot be by passed." 14. The facts of the present case are squarely covered with the facts of case law referred above. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petition filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 482 of the Code after the trial court has recorded the finding of conviction against him is not maintainable as he has got efficacious statutory remedy to challenge his conviction in appeal before this Court and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is dismissed as not maintainable.