HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to reduce the interim compensation ordered to be paid by the petitioners vide order dated 11.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.559 of 2025 in Crl.A. No.124 of 2025 by the VI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

2. Heard Sri K. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri CMR Velu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. The crux of the case is that the petitioners herein have suffered conviction in the trial court vide STC NI No.340 of 2023 whereunder they were convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and was directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,30,00,000/- i.e. the cheque amount within two months from the date of the judgment. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioners have preferred an appeal vide Crl.A. No.124 of 2025 before the VI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. At the time of presenting the appeal, they also filed Crl.M.P. No.559 of 2025 seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The appellate court has allowed the said application on condition that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for the likesum and on further condition of payment of 10% of the compensation amount on or before 29.10.2025. The present petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the said order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that 10%

of the cheque amount would come out to Rs.33,00,000/- which is very huge amount and that the petitioners have suffered loss in their business and are not able to pay such huge amount and therefore, prayed to relax the said condition, and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and others, (2023) 10 SCC 446

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the financial capacity cannot be a ground to reduce the interim compensation and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Muskan Enterprises & another v. State of Punjab & another, 2024 SCC Online SC 4107 and the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Nagoboina Rama Rao v. The State of Telangana, Law Finder Doc ID #2488766. He further submitted that the

petitioners have suffered conviction for dishonour of cheque to an amount of Rs.3,30,00,000/-, out of which no amount has been paid to the de facto complainant eversince the pendency of the proceedings.

6. Perused the record.

7. In Jamboo Bhandari’s case, the (1 supra), the Supreme Court has held that:

“In a case where appellate court is satisfied that condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of right of appeal of appellant, exception can be made for reasons specifically recorded. Therefore, when appellate court considers prayer under Section 389 Cr.P.C., of an accused, who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, it is always open to appellate court to consider whether it is exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing condition of 20% of fine/compensation amount.”

8. In Muskan Enterprises v. State of Telangana (2 supra)

the High Court has declined to entertain the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein the amount awarded towards interim compensation was prayed to be reduced, but the Apex Curt has set aside the High Court’s order and has directed to remand the matter to the Sessions Court to reexamine the issue of ordering deposit. Whether sufficient ground has been made out by the appellant to persuade the Sessions Court not to order any deposit is left entirely to its discretion and satisfaction. In the said case 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial court was directed to be paid within a period of 60 days in the trial court.

9. In Nag