Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chilakala Sreenivasulu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 October, 2024
APHC010453692024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3368]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7405/2024
Between:
Chilakala Sreenivasulu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. Y NARAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to quash the order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.212 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.51 of 2024 on the file of learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. 2
2. Heard Sri Y.Narapa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1.
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 18.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.212 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.51 of 2024 under Section 389(3) Cr.P.C., directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount ordered by the learned Trial Judge within a period of one (01) month 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. This Court after following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal @ Colonel S.S.Deswal and 3 others1, Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Others2, and reported judgment of this Court in Crl.P.No.5914 of 2024 dated 28.08.2024, by following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that , "normally, the Appellate Court will be justified in imposing condition of deposit as provided in section 148 of N.I.A.ct. However, in a case, whether the Appellate Court is satisfied with the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust, exception can be made for the reason specifically recorded. Hence, when the Appellate Court considers an application filed U/s.389(3) Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 430 of BNSS by the drawer of the cheque (accused), who was convicted for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the Appellant Court has to consider whether it is exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing condition of deposit of 20% of fine/compensation amount. If the Appellate Court comes to said conclusion that it is an exceptional case, reasons for coming to such conclusion must be recorded".
6. In the case on hand, the impugned order of the learned Appellate Court does not disclose anything that the learned Appellate Court considered whether the cases in the exception or not? i.e., 1 2019 (11) SCC 341 2 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 4 whether it warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount?
7. In those circumstances, the impugned order of the learned Appellate Court is set side and restored the application filed by the appellant U/s.389(3) Cr.P.C., corresponding to section 430 of BNSS before the Appellate Court. The petitioner/accused shall appear before the learned Appellate Court in 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such appearance, the learned Appellate Court shall consider the application afresh and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within seven (07) days. Till then, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court stands suspended. If the petitioner/accused fails to appear before the learned Appellate Court as directed above, the Criminal Petition stands dismissed without recourse to the Court.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI Dated: 23.10.2024 PSA 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI Criminal Petition No:7405 of 2024 Date: 23.10.2024 PSA