IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1819 OF 2025 Between: 1. M/s. Ralco Steels Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director, Cherukuru Ramesh Babu, Plot No.55, D.No.11-35-9/1, Dasapalla Hills, Visakhapatnam. 2. Ch.Naga Lakshmi, W/o. Ramesh Babu, Authorized Signator, M/s Ralco Steels Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.55, D.No.11-35- 9/1, Dasapalla Hills, Visakhapatnam. 3. Ch. Ramesh Babu, S/o. Subba Rao, Director, M/s Ralco Steels Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.55, D.No. 11-35-9/1, Dasapalla Hills, Visakhapatnam. 4. James Manohar Raju, S/o. James Nadar, Director, M/s Ralco Steels Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.55, D.No.11-35-9/1, Dasapalla Hills, Visakhapatnam. (The Case against A.4 was withdrawn). ...Petitioner / Appellants / Accused AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its PP., High Court of AP. Amaravathi Guntur District. 2. Suddapalli Venkata Hah Kumar, S/o. Late S.Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, R/at D.No.50-24-10, T.P.T. Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents Petition 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 order dated 30-07-2024 to the extent of imposing 20% of the compensation amount within One month from the date of the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.289 OF 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 2024 in CC.NO. 216 OF 2016 I.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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 30-07-2024 to the extent of imposing 20% of the compensation amount within One month from the date of the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.289 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 2024 in CC.NO. 216 of 2016 against the petitioners/accused. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Paila Balu Anil Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010083782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1819/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) M/s. Ralco Steels Pvt. Ltd., and Others AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitloner/accused{S): 1. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant{S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 / ORDER: The instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed, by the Petitioners/ Accused, seeking quashment of the order dated 30.07.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.289 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.232 of 2024 in C.C.No.216 of 2016, on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge- cum-l Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard Sri Balu Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and acceded by the learned Additional 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; 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 Deswai @ 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 to. 7. ^ 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 3 the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 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. 1. 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.l. 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. 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. 8. 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. ” 4 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 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 Criminal Petition is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Appellate Court is set side and restoring the application filed by the appellants U/s.389(3) Cr.P.C., corresponding to section 430 of BNSS before the Appellate Court. The petitioners/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 4. 5 before the learned Appellate Court as petitioner/accused fails to appear the Criminal Petition stands dismissed without recourse to the directed above, Court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam 2. One CC to Sri. Palla Balu Anil Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies PR vna HIGH COURT DATED:20/02/2025 ORDER 12 MAR 2025 n . Current Section . CRLP.No.1819 Of 2025 o Co ALLOWING THE CRLP