APHC010522742024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8399 OF 2024 Between: 1. JUPUDY SURESH BABU, S/o.Venkateswara Rao Aged about 61 years, R/o.D.No.7-18-2, Bandaruvari Street, Near Corporation Bank, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. N ANIL KUMAR, S/o.Malyadri, Aged about 57 years, R/o.D.No.6-21-4, Behind Taluk Office, Maramganti Vari Street, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravati. ...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 Courtmay be pleased to quash the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.684/2024 in Crl.A.No.275/2024, dated 26-09-2024 on the file of the Court of Judge, Family Court -cum- IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, to the extent of imposing 2 condition on the Petitioner to deposit 15% of the compensation amount of Rs.4,28,650/- within 60 days from the date of order, IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to suspend the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.684/2024 in Crl.A.No.275/2024, dated 26-09-2024 on the file of the Court of Judge, Family Court -cum- IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, to the extent of imposing condition on the Petitioner to deposit 15% of the compensation amount of Rs.4,28,650/- within 60 days, pending disposal of the above criminal petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondents: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO:8399 of 2024 The Court made the following Order: Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein (Accused), seeking to set-aside the Order dated 26.09.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.684 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.275 of 2024 passed by the learned Family Court-cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, at Rajamahendravaram. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State and perused the entire material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that learned Sessions Judge who is adjudicating an Appeal against the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 passed the impugned Order dated 26.09.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.684 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.275 of 2024 under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., pari materia to Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where under, directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of compensation amount ordered by learned Trial Judge, within a period of two (02) months from the date of order, while suspending the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Magistrate. He further states that the order of the 1st Appellate Court to the extent of imposing a condition to deposit 15% of the compensation amount, 4 without arriving at any specific reason, is not legal and valid and also not in accordance with Jamboo Bhandari v. MP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd’s case. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-State submits that the 1st Appellate Court has power to order the appellant to deposit such sum, which shall be a minimum of 15% of the fine or compensation amount awarded by trial Court in an Appeal against the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 5. It is apt to note that learned counsel for the petitioner states that, as per earlier order of this Court, he has taken notice to the unofficial respondent No.1 and filed proof of same. Despite the same, none represented the unofficial respondent No.1. 6. Sri B.V.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 21.11.2024, petitioner deposited 10% of the Cheque amount before the trial Court on 10.12.2024 itself, and he also filed a Memo dated 08.09.2026 annexing relevant documents in proof of the same. He further submits that the petitioner is aged about 61 years and is ready and willing to cooperate for speedy disposal of the main Appeal. 7. In Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Others1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, 1(2023) 10 SCC 446 5 referring para in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal’s case (supra) held 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, the 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 deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, an exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. 7. Therefore, when the Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of 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 6 the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not.” 8. By taking note of the statutory realm and Apex Court’s interpretation and also the object and intendment of fiscal enactment, and also considering the language employed in the “Special Enactment” (N.I Act) and its legislative intent, more particularly the use of the word “may”, the Apex Court held in its subsequent succession, Rakesh Ranjan Shrivasthava v. State of Jharkhand and others2 held and summarized in the following guidelines: 27. Subject to what is held earlier, the main conclusions can be summarized as follows: 27.1. The exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 143-A is discretionary. The provision is directory and not mandatory. The word “may” used in the provision cannot be construed as “shall”. 27.2. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143-A, the court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors. 27.3. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143-A are as follows: 27.3.1. The court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application. The financial distress of the accused can also be a consideration. 27.3.2. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case. 27.3.3. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation. 2(2024) 4 SCC 419 7 27.3.4. If the court concludes that a case is made out to grant interim compensation, it will also have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. While doing so, the court will have to consider several factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc. 27.3.5. There could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a given case, which cannot be exhaustively stated. The parameters stated above are not exhaustive. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rakesh Rajan Shrivasthava’s case (Supra) held that grant of interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act is discretionary and cannot be made as a matter of routine. 9. Coming to the instant case facts, learned First Appellate Judge, taking note of multiple cases inter se parties as well as monetary values attached to the subject matters, while suspending the sentence and conviction against the petitioner, the Appellate Court directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of the compensation amount in each case, whereas that this Court on 21.11.2024, after perceiving the relevant facts and circumstances, consciously reduced the percentage of deposit amount from 15% to 10%, within a period of two (02) weeks from date of receipt of copy of said order. Written memo dated 08.09.2026 was filed before this Court, evidencing the 10% amount, as directed by this Court. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that despite service of notice, none appeared for respondent No.1 and as 8 the petitioner complied with the conditional Order of this Court dated 21.11.2024 and also as the Appeal is of the year 2024, in advance stage, at this point of time, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Criminal Petition in the following terms: i. Learned Family Court-cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, at Rajamahendravaram is directed to dispose of the Crl.A.No.275 of 2024, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of ten (10) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order; and ii. Parties are directed to cooperate for early disposal of the Criminal Appeal, without seeking unnecessary adjournments. As a sequel, Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 30.09.2026 PSA 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8399 of 2024 Date: 30.09.2026 PSA