Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11104 (AP)

Shaik Abdul Rasheed Alias Dileep v. Kilari Ramanjaneyulu

CRLRC/1118/2026 · 2026-09-22

Y Lakshmana Rao

Civil Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010504102026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1118/2026 Between: 1. SHAIK ABDUL RASHEED ALIAS DILEEP, S/O. SHAIK KHASIM SAHEB,AGED 67 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.1-1-39,RAMA KRISHNA PURAM, BAPATIA TOWN,BAPATIA MANDAL-521001, BAPATIA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KILARI RAMANJANEYULU, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O. NUZELAPALLI VILLAGE, MULLAMURU MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI . ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TULASI RAM S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 405 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C’)/Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking to quash the condition of depositing 20% of the cheque amount imposed in the order dated 23.06.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.177 of 2026 in C.A.No.106 of 2026 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Issuance of notice to Respondent No.1 is not required, inasmuch as the impugned order relates to deposit of 20% of the cheque amount within a stipulated time. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the financial condition of the Petitioner is deplorable and he is unable to comply with the conditions imposed by the learned Appellate Court directing deposit of 20% of the cheque amount. 5. In this regard, it is apposite to refer judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein at Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. SIDC Ltd1 at Paragraph Nos.7 to 10, it is held that the court under exceptional cases may grant suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount/cheque amount. 1 (2023) 10 SCC 446 3 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 23.06.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.177 of 2026 in C.A.No.106 of 2026 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, is slightly modified. The Petitioner is permitted to deposit 10% of the cheque amount within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. On such deposit, Respondent No.1 is at liberty to withdraw the same upon furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 7. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.09.2026 BMS