IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI 3 V, APHC010568162025 MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11034 OF 2025 Between: B N Chittesh Reddy, S/o. B.J. Narendra Reddy, aged about 31 years, R/o. Door No. 5-56/A, 3 Cross, Srikrishna Nagar, M.R. Palli, Tirupati, Tirupati District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur District. ...Respondent 2. K Munirathnam, S/o. K. Muneppa, aged about 51 years, R/o. Door No. 19-12-99, Bairagipatteda, Tirupati, Tirupati District. ...Respondent/Respondent/Complainant 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 High Court may be pleased to the quash the Order dated 28.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.256 of 2025 in CRLA. No.119 of 2025 in C.C.No.177 of 2019 on the fiie of the iV Additionai District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati to the extent > I the directing the Petitioner herein to ^mduntfor suspending the execution of sentence imposed ’ tde Judgment dated 27.06.2025 in C.C.No.177 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 pre deposit 20% of the cheque on the Petitioner 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 High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order dated 28.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.256 of 2025 in CRLA. No.119 of 2025 in C.C.No.177 of 2019 the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati to the extent of the directing the Petitioner herein to pre-deposit 20% of the cheque amount for suspending the execution of sentence imposed on the Petitioner vide Judgment dated 27.06.2025 in C.C.No.177 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. KANDERI CHETHAN on Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: APHC010568162025 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: 11034/2025 Between: 1.B N CHITTESH REDDY, S/0. B.J. NARENDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/0. DOOR NO. 5-56/A, 3 CROSS, SRIKRISHNA NAGAR, M.R. PALLI, T1RUPATI, 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/0. K. MUNEPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/0. 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: 11034/2025 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.256 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.119 of 2025 in C.C.No.177 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. 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 3. 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.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 7. 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 be made for the \ appellant, exception can reasons specifically recorded. 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 always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension without /■ of sentence of the imposing the condition of deposit of 20% fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the must be recorded. reasons for coming to the said conclusion 8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions before the High Court, there Court nor M/as a plea made by the appellants In these cases and the that an exception may be made requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer u/as not made were no reasons for the Courts to by the appellants, there consider the said plea. 9. H/e disagree with the above submission, applies under Section 389 of the sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has the case falls In exception or not.” When an accused Cr.P.C. for suspension of of suspension of to 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 ease; 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. ” Considering the submissions made and following the Order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.5914 of 2024, dated 28.08.2024, this 4. 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/accu sed 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 TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. 2. The V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. 3. B N Chittesh Reddy, S/o. B.J. Narendra Reddy, aged about 31 years, R/o. Door No. 5-56/A, 3 Cross, Srikrishna Nagar, M.R. Palli, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 4. One CC to Sri. Kanderi Chethan, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies PR sree ‘ 4) HIGH COURT DATED:27/10/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 11034 OF 2025 S c 3 NOV 2025 m ALLOWING THE CRLP