SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 1001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.
Mekala Sudha Prameela Kantha @ Jangam Sudha Prameela Kantha, @ Jangam Sudha Prameela Kantha W/o Satyam - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 7676 of 2024
Decided On : 06-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.K. Durga Prasad

The modification of conditions for suspension of sentence highlights the principle that accused typically seek relief without conditions, and the court must determine applicability under exceptions.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 and Section 389(1) - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Modification of suspension order - Accused convicted under Section 138, sentenced to one year and ordered to pay Rs.10,00,000/- compensation; appeal for suspension of sentence permitted on condition of depositing 20% of compensation - Court sets aside the Sessions Judge's order for the condition, noting lack of justification for exemption from deposit requirements - Modification allows deposit of 10% instead of 20%, with eight weeks for compliance. (Paras 1-19)

(B) Conditions for Suspension - When an accused seeks suspension of sentence, typically without conditions - The Court is to determine applicability under exceptions and not impose arbitrary conditions - Discretion of appellate court emphasized. (Paras 7, 10, 14)

Table of Content
1. filing under specific legal provisions. (Para 1)
2. conviction under section 138 and sentencing details. (Para 2 , 11)
3. suspension of sentence conditions. (Para 3 , 4)
4. failure to provide circumstances for exemption. (Para 5 , 6)
5. conditions for suspension of sentence per apex court guidelines. (Para 7)
6. discretion of the appellate court. (Para 9 , 10 , 14)
7. duty to determine exceptions in suspension applications. (Para 12 , 13 , 15)
8. modification of compensation deposit requirement. (Para 16 , 17)
9. conclusion of criminal petition and modified order. (Para 19)

ORDER :

1. Sri K.K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 528 of BNSS , 2023, on behalf of the petitioner/accused to modify or set aside the order dated August 30, 2024, in Criminal Petition No. 314 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2024, which is currently pending before the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, at Rajamahendravaram.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Magistrate in C.C No. 557/2021 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as per the judgment dated April 15, 2024, on the file of VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajamahendravaram. The learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only), which is the amount of the cheque, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three (03) months. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2024 on the file of the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, at Rajamahendravaram. In the appeal, he filed Cri. Petition No 314 of 2024 under Section 389 (1) of the CrPC seeking suspension of the sentence and the payment of the compensation amount imposed by the learned Magistrate.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the learned Sessions Judge, in an order dated 10.05.2024, permitted the application by suspending the sentence of imprisonment and the payment of compensation, on the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation awarded by the learned Magistrate within 60 days of the order.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.4747/2024 before this Court under Section 482 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE to modify or set aside the order of the learned First Appellate Court. This Court, in an order dated 29.07.2024, set aside the order of the learned First Appellate Judge and remitted the matter to the learned First Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with the guidelines laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Others. Subsequently, the learned Sessions Judge, under the impugned order dated 30.08.2024, suspended the order of the learned Magistrate, subject to deposit of 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days of the order.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the learned Sessions Judge, as per paragraph 12 of the order, observed that the petitioner had not presented any circumstances to justify exemption from depositing the 20% of compensation. The grounds of appeal did not disclose any exceptional circumstances that could warrant such an exemption.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge deviates from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. and the order of this Court dated July 29, 2024, in Crl. Pet. No. 4747/2024.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further argue that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in paragraph 9 of the judgment, observed that when an accused a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top