IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY;^^o^;^^^V TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE i’ Cr / j M v.O V\>.y\ . ^ PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 353 OF 2025 Between: Muraharirao Surya Sundara Patnaik Simhagiri, S/o. Late Sankarayana, aged 52 years, R/o. Private Enclave, Vaibhav Nagar, Near Kommadi Junction, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioner/Appellant/Accused AND 1. Balaga Sridhara Rao, S/o. Late Sriramulu, Aged 42 years, R/o. Kannampeta Village, Mukkuva Mandal, Vizainagaram District, Presently Parvathipuram Manyam District. ...Respondent/Respondent/Complainant 2. The State of AP, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, At Amaravathi. ...Respondent/Respondent Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dated 27-11-2024 passed in Crl.MP.No.135 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Parvathipuram, in so far as directing the petitioner/appellant herein to deposit 20 % of the cheque amount within two months from the date of order and on such deposit the 1st respondent/complainant is entitled with draw the said anpount, is concerned. i I.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order dated 27-11-2024 passed in Crl.MP.No.135 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Parvathipuram, in so far as directing the petitioner/appellant herein to deposit 20 % of the cheque amount within two months from the date of order and on such deposit the 1st respondent/complainant is entitled with draw the said amount, is concerned, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: APHC010008172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) m [3368] MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION No: 353/2025 Between: 1.MURAHARIRAO SURYA SUNDARA PATNAIK SIMHAGIRI S/0. LATE SANKARAYANA, AGED 52 YEARS, PRIVATE ENCLAVE, VAIBHAV NAGAR, NEAR KOMMADI JUNCTION, MADHURAWADA. VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED R/0. AND 1.BALAGA SRIDHARA RAO, S/0. LATE SRIRAMULU, AGED 42 YEARS, R/0. KANNAMPETA VILLAGE, MUKKUVA MANDAL, VIZAINAGARAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. 2.THE STATE OF AP, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP, AT AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.T LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION No.353 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused, under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to set aside the order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.135 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.66 of 2024 by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram District at Parvathipuram. Heard Sri T.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing 2. the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that learned Sessions Judge in the appeal against the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act passed the impugned order dated 27.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.135 of 2024 under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount ordered by the learned Trial Judge within a period of two (02) months from the date of the order, while suspending the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Magistrate. He would submit that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not in 3. 3 accordance with Jamboo Bhandari Development Corporation Ltd’s case. V. MP State Industrial 4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor takes the State and would submit that the Appellate Court has order the appellant to deposit such minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation amount the trial Court in Negotiable Instruments Act. notice for power to sum, which shall be a awarded by an appeal against the conviction U/s.138 of 5. In a recent judgment of the Honorable Apex Court in the case of Muskan Enterprises and another versus the State of Punjab and another, observed that the Appellate Court discretion not to order the deposit of 20% of has the amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in appropriate and exceptional cases. The learned Sessions Judge in the order did not specify how the present case would not fall under the category of appropriate and exceptional cases. 6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Magistrate, The learned Magistrate petitioner to simple imprisonment for sentenced the a period of six (06) months 4 and ordered him to pay Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) as compensation. The petitioner/accused subsequently filed an appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Magistrate. In the case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., & Ors., referred above, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when an accused applies under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for the suspension of sentence, they typically seek the grant of relief without any conditions. Therefore, when the appellants sought a blanket order, the Court had to determine whether the case fell under an exception. Consequently, when an application is filed by the appellant under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for the suspension of sentence, it is presumed that the appellant is seeking suspension without any conditions. The Court’s duty is to ascertain whether the case falls under an exception or not, to impose conditions as prescribed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court after following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal @ Colonel S.S.Deswal and others\ Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P.State 7. 2019 (11) see 341 5 Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Others^ Muskan Enterprises and another versus the State of Punjab and another^, and reported judgment of this Court in Crl.P.No.5914 of 2024 dated 28.08.2024, held that, “normally, the Appellate Court will be justified in imposing condition of deposit as provided in section 148 of N.I.A.ct. 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 chegue (accused), who w/as convicted for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the Appellant Court 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”. 8. In the case on hand, the impugned order of the learned Appellate Court does not disclose anything that the learned ^ 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 ^ 2024 INSC 1046 If—’ 6 Appellate Court considered whether the cases in the exception or not? i.e., whether it warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount? In those circumstances, the impugned order of the learned Appellate Court is set side and restored the application filed by the appellant U/s.389(1) 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 9. the Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of at the 10. stage of admission. 4^ 1 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, SOI- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S OFFICER / To, 1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge Vizianagaram District. 2. One CC to Sri T Lakshmi Narayana Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies Parvathipuram, at SAM fl'eOURT SAM -'f / DATED: 20/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.353 of 2025 x:>'. Of * 2 0 JAN 2025 ^ . Current Secuon DISPOSING OF THE CRLP AT THE ADMISSION STAGE