APHC010709142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. M/S. ADHYA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,KOTHURU BHARAT VEER, AGED 50 YEARS,B1, COOP. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BALANAGAR,HYDERABAD 500 037 2. KOTHURU BHARAT VEER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, OF M/S. ADHYA INDUSTRIES PVT ESTATE,BALANAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 037 1. M/S ANANDA REBARS PVT LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,G. KALYANA ANANDA, AGED 35 YEARS,D NO. 4 ANANDA SAMRAJ TOWERS,KURMANNAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT BLDGS, AMARAVATI 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 Criminal Petition, the High Court order dated 19.8.2025 passed in CRIMP No. 1091/2025 in CrlA No. 307/2025 on the file of XIII Addl District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka and quash the same IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13631/2025 M/S. ADHYA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,KOTHURU BHARAT VEER, AGED 50 YEARS,B1, COOP. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BALANAGAR,HYDERABAD 500 037 KOTHURU BHARAT VEER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, OF M/S. ADHYA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,B1, COOPERTIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,BALANAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 037 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND M/S ANANDA REBARS PVT LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,G. KALYANA ANANDA, AGED 35 YEARS,D NO. 4 ANANDA SAMRAJ TOWERS,KURMANNAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT BLDGS, AMARAVATI ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 Criminal Petition, the High Court Pleased to call for the records relating to order dated 19.8.2025 passed in CRIMP No. 1091/2025 in CrlA No. 307/2025 on the file of XIII Addl District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka and quash the same in so far as the Condition to deposit 20% of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA M/S. ADHYA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,KOTHURU BHARAT VEER, AGED 50 YEARS,B1, COOP. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BALANAGAR,HYDERABAD 500 037 KOTHURU BHARAT VEER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, OF M/S. ADHYA LTD,B1, COOPERTIVE INDUSTRIAL ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) M/S ANANDA REBARS PVT LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,G. KALYANA ANANDA, AGED 35 YEARS,D NO. 4-74, ANANDA SAMRAJ TOWERS,KURMANNAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 Pleased to call for the records relating to order dated 19.8.2025 passed in CRIMP No. 1091/2025 in CrlA No. 307/2025 on the file of XIII Addl District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka in so far as the Condition to deposit 20% of compensation amount of Rs. 13,73,104/- i.e, Rs. 2,74,621/-in the trial court within a period of one month from the date of the said order dated 19.8.2025 as illegal in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 operation of the order dated 19.8.2025 passed in Crl MP No. 1091/2025 in Crl A No. 307/2025 on the file of XIII Addl District a Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka so far as imposition of condition ofdeositing 20% of the Compensation amount of Rs. 13,73,104/- i.e, Rs. 2,-74,621/- .which is the 20% of compensation amount pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13631/2025 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed, by the Petitioner/ Accused, seeking quashment of the order dated order dated 19.8.2025 passed in Crl.M.P No. 1091/2025 in Crl.A No. 307/2025 on the file of the learned XIII Addl District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka. 2. Heard Sri Yallabandi Ramatirtha, 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 to, 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 : “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 1 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 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. 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 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.389 (3) Cr.P.C., corresponding to section 430 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: 05.01.2026 Note Issue CC by today b/o KKV 24 THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13631/2025 Dated: 05.01.2026 KKV HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI MAIN CASE NO.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13631/2025 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date ORDER OFFICE NOTE 1 05.01.2026 Dr.VJP,J The Criminal Petition is allowed. (Vide separate order) ________ Dr.VJP, J KKV