APHC010384012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7853 OF 2025 Between: Dr.Vakada Venkateswara Rao, aged about 50 years, S/o.Ramaiah, Working as Medical Officer in Government Homeo Dispensary, Near Vaddadi, Paderu Lande, M.Koduru, V.Madhugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Now Anakapalli District, Residing at D.No.14- 10-63 Ramajogipeta Sarojini Courts, B.Block, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-530002 and also working at Sri Venkateswara Hospital, Nowroji Road, Ward No.20, New St, Anthony School, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, A.P.High Court, Amaravathi. 2. Lakshman Kumar Chaudharani, S/o.Late Navendram Chaudharani, Residing at D.No. 19-46-7, Rangareejuvari Street, Visakhapatnam District. ...Respondents % petition filed 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 Order dated 10-04-2025 in Crl.M.P l^O-^^ 2025 in CrlANo.138 of 2025, on the file of Court of the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam against conviction Judgmei^^ C.C.No.3065 of 2019, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. lA NOU-QF 2025 Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order dated 10-04-2025 in Crl.M.P.No.37 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.138 of 2025, on the file of Court of XII Additional District and Session Judge, Visakhapatnam against conviction Judgment in C.C.No.3065 of 2019, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Counsel for the Petitioner; Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2:- The Court made the following Order: APHC010384012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY.THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7853/2025 Between: 1.DR VAKADA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/0 RAMAIAH, WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER, IN GOVT HOMEO DISPENSARY, NEAR VADDADI.PADERU LANDE, M.KODURU, V.MADHUGULA MANDAL, VISHAKAPATANAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT D. NO. 14-10-63! RAMAJOGIPETA SAROJINI COURTS, B. BLOCK, MAHARANIPETa! VISHAKAPATANAM ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PROSECUTOR, A.P. HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI. 2.LAKSHMAN KUMAR CHAUDHARANI, S/0 LATE NAVENDRAM CHAUDHARANI, RESIDING AT D. NO. 19-46-7, RANGAREEJUVARI STREET, VISHAKAPATANAM DISTRICT. REP BY ITS PUBLIC ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to quash the order dt.10-04-2025 in Crl.M.P.No.37/2025 in CrI.A.No. 138/2025, on the file of Court of the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vishakhapatnam against conviction judgment in Vishakhapatnam and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 C.C.No.3065/2019, on the file of Chief judicial magistrate 2 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the nigh Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.TMKCHAITANYA Counsel for the 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Respondent/complainant(S): 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed, by the Petitioner/ Accused, seeking quashment of the order dated 10.04.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.36 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.138 of 2025 in C.C.No.3065 of 2019, on the file of XII Additional District and Sessions Judge Vishakapatnam. Heard T.M.K.Chaitanya, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned 2. Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and acceded to 3. by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the subject matter of this Criminal Petition is squarely covered by the Order passed by this Court vide Criminal Petition No.5914 of 2024, dated 28.08.2024, wherein, it was held at paras 7 and 8 as under; The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Others^ referring above para in the case of Surinder Singh Deswai @ Coionel S.S.Deswai and others, held in paras 6 to 9 as under: “6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.l. Act. Hence, normally. Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. 7. ^ 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 4 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 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. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor 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. 9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not. ” 8. Therefore, in the light of above judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, normally, the Appellate Court will be Justified in imposing condition of deposit as provided in Section 148 of N.l.Act. However, in a case, whether the Appellate Court is satisfied with the condition of deposit of 20%, will be unjust, exception can be made for the reason specifically recorded. Hence, when the Appellate Court considers an application filed U/s. 389(3) Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 430 of BNSS by the drawer of the cheque (accused), who was convicted for 8. 5 the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the AppellantCourt has to consider whether it is exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing condition of deposit of 20% of fine/compensation amount. If the Appellate Court comes to said conclusion that it is an exceptional case, reasons for coming to such conclusion must be recorded. ” Considering the submissions made and following the Order passed by 4. this Court in Criminal Petition No.5914 of 2024, dated 28.08.2024, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Appellate Court is set side and restoring the application filed by the appellant U/s.389 (3) Cr.P.C., corresponding to section 430 of BNSS before the Appellate Court. The petitioner/accused shall appear before the learned Appellate Court in 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such appearance the learned Appellate Court shall consider the application afresh and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within seven (07) days. Till then, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court stands suspended. If the petitioner/accused fails to appear before the learned Appellate Court as directed above, the Criminal Petition stands dismissed without recourse to the Court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECrnON OFFICER To, 1. The XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3. One CC to Sri T.M.K.Chaitanya, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies BSV vna ' «> HIGH COURT DATED:29/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7853 OF 2025 *1 1 1 AUG 2025 ScamijtSKag^ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION