APHC010566902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11004/2025 Between: 1. B N CHITTESH REDDY, S/O. B.J. NARENDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 5-56/A, 3RD CROSS, SRIKRISHNA NAGAR, M.R. PALLI, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. NELAPADU, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. K MUNIRATHNAM, S/O. K. MUNEPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 19-12-99, BAIRAGIPATTEDA TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KANDERI CHETHAN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11004/2025 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed, by the Petitioner, seeking quashment of the order dated 28.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.255 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.118 of 2025 in C.C.No.176 of 2019, on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. 2. Heard Sri Kanderi Chethan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and acceded to, by the learned Assistant 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 : “7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Others1, 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 1 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 3 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. 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.I. 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. 8. 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.I.Act. However, in a case, whether the Appellate Court is satisfied with the condition of deposit of 4 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 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.” 4. Considering the submissions made and following the Order passed by 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. 430(1) 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. _________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 27.10.2025. UPS 5 70 THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11004 OF 2025 Dated: 27.10.2025 UPS