Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 13280
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
A ITHABATHULA VENKATA RAMANA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8679/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.V.S.S.PRABHAKARA RAO
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Court ruled that appellate courts may suspend sentences without a condition of deposit if exceptional circumstances exist, requiring precise justification for such decisions.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 437, 438, 439, 482, and 528 - The petitioner seeks quashment of a prior order in a criminal case. Court followed precedents and reverted previous orders regarding appeal provisions and conditions for suspension of sentence without deposit. (Paras 3-4)
(B) Appeal - Circumstances that justify exceptional consideration in imposing deposit conditions in appellate proceedings were reiterated. (Paras 7-8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to challenge an order related to the suspension of sentence post-conviction for cheque dishonor. The implications of prior judgments on this matter were significant in evaluating the need for a deposit.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petition, set aside the lower court's order, and instructed reconsideration of the suspension application.
Issues: The principal issue was whether to apply deposit conditions, weighing justice against procedural rules in light of exceptional circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a suspension without deposit can be justified in exceptional cases, provided the reasons are properly recorded.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging prior orders based on higher judicial decisions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's justification for reviewing and possibly suspending sentences. (Para 3) |
| 3. clarified exceptional conditions in appellate procedure. (Para 4) |
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 Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to call for the records relating to Order dated 10-06-2025 in CrI.M.P. No. 330 of 2025 IN CrI. A NO. 177 of 2025 in CC No 116 of 2022 In The Court of the XIII Addl.Sessions Judge: Raamachandrapuram : East Godavari District and modify the same and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. K.V.S.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8679/2025
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed, by the Petitioner, seeking quashment of the order dated 10.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.330 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.177 of 2025 in C.C.No.116 of 2022, on the file of XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District.
2. Heard Sri K.V.S.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and acceded to, by the learned Assistant 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 Others , [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776] 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 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 14
