APHC010008172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3368]

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION No: 353/2025 Between:

1. MURAHARIRAO SURYA SUNDARA PATNAIK SIMHAGIRI, S/O. LATE SANKARAYANA, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O. PRIVATE ENCLAVE, VAIBHAV NAGAR, NEAR KOMMADI JUNCTION, MADHURAWADA. VISAKHAPATNAM.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. BALAGA SRIDHARA RAO, S/O. LATE SRIRAMULU, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. KANNAMPETA VILLAGE, MUKKUVA MANDAL, VIZAINAGARAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT.

2. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP, AT AMARAVATHI.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. T LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2.

The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION No.353 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused, under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.135 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.66 of 2024 by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram District at Parvathipuram.

2. Heard Sri T.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that learned Sessions Judge in the appeal against the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act passed the impugned order dated 27.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.135 of 2024 under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount ordered by the learned Trial Judge within a period of two (02) months from the date of the order, while suspending the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Magistrate. He would submit that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not in accordance with Jamboo Bhandari v. MP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd’s case.

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor takes notice for the State and would submit that the Appellate Court has power to order the appellant to deposit such sum, which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation amount awarded by the trial Court in an appeal against the conviction U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. In a recent judgment of the Honorable Apex Court in the case of Muskan Enterprises and another versus the State of Punjab and another, observed that the Appellate Court has discretion not to order the deposit of 20% of the amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in appropriate and exceptional cases. The learned Sessions Judge in the order did not specify how the present case would not fall under the category of appropriate and exceptional cases.

6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and ordered him to pay Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) as compensation. The petitioner/accused subsequently filed an appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Magistrate. In the case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., & Ors., referred above, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when an accused applies under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for the suspension of sentence, they typically seek the grant of relief without any conditions. Therefore, when the appellants sought a blanket order, the Court had to determine whether the case fell under an exception. Consequently, when an application is filed by the appellant under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for the suspension of sentence, it is presumed that the appellant is seeking suspension without any conditions