APHC010319012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6595 OF 2025 Between: Thyada Varaha Appala Jannardhan Rao, S/o Late Satyanarayana, aged 62 years, R/o Door No. H-3, P & R Quarters, Dandubajar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioner/Appellant/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, A.P High Court, Amaravathi 2. Kanchumurthy Srinivasa Murthy, S/o Late Kondala Rao, aged 48 years, R/o Flat No. 105, 1st Floor, Raja Ratnam Towers, Near Raghu College, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam - 530002. ...Respondents Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the condition imposed by the Sessions Court in its order dated 02-06-2025 in CrI.M.P. No.56/2025 in CrI.Appeal No. 121/2025, requiring deposit of 20 % of the compensation amount. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the execution of the sentence passed in C.C. No. 1581/2023 by the learned V Special Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam final adjudication of this petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Padmaja Kattunga Counsel for the Respondents: Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following order: until 'APHC010319012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6595/2025 Between: 1.THYADA VARAHA APPALA JANNARDHAN RAO, S/0 LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED 62 YEARS, R/0 DOOR NO. H-3, P AND R QUARTERS, DANDUBAJAR, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE SATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, A.P HIGH COURT.AMARAVATHI 2.KANCHUMURTHY SRINIVASA MURTHY, S/0 LATE KONDALA RAO, AGED 48 YEARS, R/0 FLAT NO. 105, 1ST FLOOR, RAJA RATNAM TOWERS, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530002. NEAR RAGHU COLLEGE, RAMNAGAR, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PADMAJAKATTUNGA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2025 in Crl.M.P.No.27 of 2025 in Crl.Appeal.No.121 of 2025. 2. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the order of conviction for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.27 of 2025 in Crl.Appeal.No.121 of 2025 and sought suspension of sentence. The learned XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam had suspended the sentence subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the compensation amount of Rs. 10,80,000/- within a period of two months. The said order was passed on 28.03.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2025 seeking further time of one month for deposit the said 20% of the compensation amount. 3. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed for deposit of 20% of the compensation amount is contrary to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited^. 1 Para Nos. 7 and 8 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as follows: “7. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.l. Act, it is always ^2023) see Online Se 822 I 3 open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded. 8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court before the High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts to consider the said plea.” It is submitted that Section 148 of the N.I.Act is categorically clear and discretionary power of the Appellate Court is there for imposing a condition for deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. nor 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner may be granted further time to comply with the direction to deposit of 20% of the compensation amount as ordered by the learned XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, the time granted earlier is extended till 30.08.2025. ' 5. 6. In view of the above, this Criminal Petition is disposed off. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The V Special Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3. One CC to Sri. Padmaja Kattunga, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies To, Stu ✓ HIGH COURT DATED:01/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 6595 OF 2025 iT ^ ^ JUL 2025 [rent Sec sSS Co DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION