APHC010562872024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9068/2024 Between: Sayad Baji Rahmatullah @ Syed Baji Rahmatullah ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku against the orders in CRLMP.No.871 of 2024 in CRLA.No.224 of 2024 in CC.No.125 of 2021. The petitioner has filed appeal against the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and has sentenced to undergo for a period of one year simple imprisonment apart from fine of Rs.45,000/-. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that along with appeal the petitioner has filed CRLMP.No.871 of 2024 seeking suspension of the sentence. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has suspended the condition on account of deposit of 20% of the cheque amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is devoid of reasons for directing deposit of 20%. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jamboo Bandari Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and others. Considering the submissions that the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically cleared the ambiguity on the condition of deposit of the 20% of the cheque amount and as stated that in exceptional cases where the appellate court feels it is an appropriate case, where the 20% of deposit can be waived. Such reasons ought to be mentioned by the appellate Court while waiving the direction of deposit of 20% of the deposit of cheque amount. 4. Considering the submissions this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge Tanuku. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested time for accommodation in payment of 20% cheque amount as directed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tankuku and further submits that the petitioner is undergoing financial difficulties and requested further time to comply. Considering the request, the petitioner shall deposit the amount as directed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku by 30.04.2025. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 147 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.9068 of 2024 Date: 27.03.2025 KGM