IMPORTANT POINT
Dishonour of cheque – Suspension of sentence – Appellate Court has discretion not to order deposit of 20% of amount under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act in appropriate and exceptional cases.

ORDER

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 Rajamahend-ravaram. 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., & Ors. 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.P.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 applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for the suspension of sentence, they typically seek the grant of relief without any conditions. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court must determine whether the case falls under an exception. However, unfortunately, the learned Sessions Judge did not fallow these observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The learned Sessions Judge stated that, even after the petition was restored, the petitioner had not presented any circumstances to justify exemption from depositing the 20% of the compensation amount.

8. The learned counse