APHC010144372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3482/2025 Between: Kalluri Anjaneyulu, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. M L NEELIMA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.3482 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 28.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.105 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.219 of 2024 in C.C. No.639 of 2021 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tanuku. 3. The petitioner was convicted in C.C. No.639 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate court and filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.860 of 2024seeking suspension of the sentence. The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tanuku, while suspending the sentence, imposed a condition for the deposit of 20% of the cheque amount within a period of 60 days. By an order, dated 24.10.2024, in Crl.M.P.No.860 of 2024, the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.9496 of 2024 before this Court. This court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to appear before the trial court within 10 days. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.105 of 2025, seeking a reduction in the amount to be deposited, claiming his inability to comply with the said condition. The learned sessions judge refused to reduce the quantum of the amount to be deposited but extended the time limit for compliance till 01.03.2025.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this court through the present criminal petition. 4. After thorough examination, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the well considered order of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tanuku. The power vested in the Court of Sessions under Section 148(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is discretionary, and the learned sessions judge has exercised its discretion in accordance with the provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.As such, this court considers that no valid grounds have been raised for interfering with the well considered order. 5. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner intends to comply with the direction of the learned sessions judge, the time granted by the learned sessions judge is hereby extended till 30.04.2025. 6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt.02.04.2025 BV