1 CRL.P. No.3270 of 2025 APHC010147432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3270/2025 Between: Bolla Srinivas ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 CRL.P. No.3270 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.3270 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was imposed with an order of punishment in C.C. No.4082 of 2021 for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.15 of 2025. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed Crl.M.P.No.4 of 2025, seeking interim suspension of the sentence. The learned Sessions Judge, by an order dated 22.01.2025, suspended the sentence till the next date, i.e., 16.04.2025, subject to the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount within two months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the present criminal petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered in the matter of Jammu Bhandari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.1The learned counsel furthersubmits that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is devoid of reasons. 1 2023 INSC 822 3 CRL.P. No.3270 of 2025 4. In Jammu Bhandari’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that the requirement to deposit a minimum of 20% of the compensation amount is not an absolute rule. However, in exceptional circumstances, where the facts do not warrant the imposition of such a condition, the reasons for not imposing the condition must be explicitly recorded. 5. The order under challenge in the present criminal petition is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jammu Bandari’s case, as the present case does not fall under exceptional circumstances. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in the well reasoned order of the learned Sessions Judge and deems it appropriate to dismiss the criminal petition. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought an extension of the stay granted by the learned Sessions Judge. 7. Considering the submissions, the stay granted by the learned Sessions Judge would stand extended till the next date of adjournment, i.e., 16.04.2025. Meanwhile, the petitioner shall comply with the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. Otherwise, necessary steps will be initiated in accordance with law. 8. With these observations, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt.26.03.2025 BV