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: 7341/2024
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.209 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.48 of 2024 on the file of learned
III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.
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.209 of
2024 in Crl.A.No.48 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
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.,
2019 (11) SCC 341
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776
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, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
Dated: 23.10.2024
PSA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Criminal Petition No:7341 of 2024
Date: 23.10.2024
PSA
