ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.154 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.62 of 2024 on the file of learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Vijayawada.

02. Heard Sri K.Gani Redddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing for the State.

03. The petitioner is accused in C.C.No.363 of 2022 on the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 19.06.2024 convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month and also to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- being the two cheques amount towards compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C., to the complainant within ninety (90) days from the date of judgment, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The petitioner herein filed Crl.A.No.62 of 2024, on the file of learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Vijayawada and filed an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence vide Crl.M.P.No.154 of 2024. Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 18.06.2024 suspended the sentence by imposing a condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. MP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., and others1 the Sessions Court shall give findings as to whether the case falls under exceptional circumstances as observed in para 9 & 10 of the said judgment. But the learned Sessions Judge did not give any such reasons and therefore the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount imposed by the learned Magistrate is not sustainable in law. Para 9 and 10 of the said Judgment reads as follows:

“We disagree with the above submission, When an accused applies under Section 389 CrPC 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”.

“In these cases, both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception”.

05. Considering the submissions and in view of the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. MP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., and others, the

2023 (SC) 776 condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order without any finding whether the case falls in exception or not, to “deposit of 20% of the compensation amount before the trial court within sixty (60) days from the date of this order” is not in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred above.

06. In the said circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 of the learned Sessions Judge directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Sessions Judge to consider the matter afresh, in accordance with the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court para 9 & 10 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. MP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., and others.

07. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The matter is remitted to the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Vijayawada, with a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with the