APHC010561862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10908 OF 2025 Between: Tatapudi Swarna Latha, W/o. I.Surendra Kumar, Aged 52 years, Occ: ANM, Primary Health Centre, Chandrala, Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/Appellant/Accused AND 1. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravathi. ... Respondent/Respondent 2. Lingamallu Venkata Sailesh Kumar, S/o. Krishna Murthy, Aged 47 years, Occ: Business, Proprietor of M/s. Lingamallu Silks, R/o. D.No.26- 20-35, Swamy Street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada-3. ...Respondent/Complainant 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 impugned condition imposed in the orders dated 25.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.634 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.302 of 2025 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. / lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mernorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings of the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.634 of 2Q25 in Crl.A.No.302 of 2025 on the file of the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Pamarthi Kameswara Rao Counsel for the Respondents: The Public Prosecutor The Court made the following Order: 1 APHC010561862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI HgS FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAi PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10908 OF 2025 Between: 1. Tatapudi Swarna Latha, W/o. I. Surendra Kumar, Aged 52 years, Occ- ANM, Primary Health Centre, Chandrala, Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of A P, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ofA.P., at Amaravathi. 2. Lingamallu Venkata Sailesh Kumar, S/o. Krishna Murthy, Aged 47 years, Occ- Business, Proprietor of M/s. Lingamallu Silks Swamy street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada-3. R/o. D.No.26-20-35, i ...Respondents 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 impugned condition imposed in the orders dated 25.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.634 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.302 of 2025 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, directing the compensation amount and pass I petitioner to deposit 20% of the lA NO: 1 OF 2025 I 2 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p Q in the Memorand and 528 of BNSS circumstances stated i High Court praying that in the urn of Grounds of Criminal Petition fo stay of all further be pleased pleased ,the orders passed i proceedings of the 'n CrlMP.No.634 of 2025 i ef'he VIII Additional District of the above cri '"CrlANo.302 of2025 onthefile criminat petition and P^-^^ing disposal pass Counsel for the Petitioner; Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the ■ ^amarthi KAA/IESWARA RAO : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR following order; 7 \ 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10908 OF 2025 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 25.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.634of 2025 in Crl.A.No.302 of 2025 in C.C.No.1030 of 2019, on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada. Heard Pamarthi Kameswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and 2. learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and acceded to, by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the subject matter of this 3. 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 Deswal @ Colonel S.S.Deswal 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. I. 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 7. ^ 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 deprivation of the right of appeal be made for the reasons specifically of the appellant, exception recorded. can 7. Therefore, when Appellate Court Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. considers the prayer under of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.i Act, it is to consider whether it is an always open for the Appellate Court exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% fine/compensation amount. As Court comes to the conclusion that it of the stated earlier, if the Appellate is an exceptional case, the must be recorded, counsel appearing for the Sessions Court nor reasons for coming to the said conclusion 8. The submission of the learned original complainant is that neither before the before the High Court, there that an exception may be made was a plea made by the appellants 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 were no reasons for the Courts to by the appellants, there 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 sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order IS sought by the appellants, the Court has to the case falls in exception or not. ” suspension of consider whether 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.I.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 5 w- 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 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/compensatio n amount. If the Appellate Court comes to said conclusion that it is an exceptional case, reasons for coming to such conclusion must be recorded. ” f / 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/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFl DEPUTY REGISTRAR //true copy// SECTION OFFICER To, Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna 1. The Vlll Additional District and Sessions District. f / / / / f / I ^;V7 2. One CC to Sri Pamarthi Kameswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two GO’S to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies / / / / / GPC vna \ HIGH COURT DATED: 17/10/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 10908 OF 2025 ^ ,^^s^urrent becuot^-^r ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION