Ganta Satyanarayana vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 4338 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4338 Tel
Judgement Date : 15 December, 2023

Telangana High Court

Ganta Satyanarayana vs The State Of Telangana on 15 December, 2023

         HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                     AT HYDERABAD

                               *****
               Criminal Petition No. 12324 OF 2023
Between:

Ganta Satyanarayana
                                         ... Petitioner/accused

                               And

1.       The State of Telangana., rep by
         its Public Prosecutor High Court
         For the State of Telangana, at
         Hyderabad.
                                        ... Respondent No.1/State

2.       M/s Laxmi Srinivasa Tractors
         Partnership Firm, rep., by its
         Managing partner Thummalapally
         Bhaskar @ Bhaskar Rao, C/o: Sonalika
         Tractors, Gudibanda Road, Kodad
         Town and Mandal, Suryapet District.

                                             ...Respondent No.2


DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED:                       15.12.2023

Submitted for approval.


              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

     1    Whether Reporters of Local
          newspapers may be allowed to see        Yes/No
          the Judgments?
                           2



2   Whether the copies of judgment
    may be marked to Law                   Yes/No
    Reporters/Journals

3   Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
    wish to see the fair copy of the       Yes/No
    Judgment?


                                     __________________
                                      K.SURENDER, J
                               3


       * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

                   + CRL.P.No. 12324 of 2023

% Dated 15.12.2023

# Ganta Satyanarayana
                                                ... Petitioner
                             And

1.   The State of Telangana., rep by
     its Public Prosecutor High Court
     For the State of Telangana, at
     Hyderabad.
                                    ... Respondent No.1/State

2.   M/s Laxmi Srinivasa Tractors
     Partnership Firm, rep., by its
     Managing partner Thummalapally
     Bhaskar @ Bhaskar Rao, C/o: Sonalika
     Tractors, Gudibanda Road, Kodad
     Town and Mandal, Suryapet District.

                                          ...Respondent No.2

! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Shaik Madar



^ Counsel for the Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor
                              for State

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1 Crl.O.P.No.28838 of 2011, dated 28.02.2012.
                               4


       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

         CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 12324 of 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the

petitioner to quash the docket order dated 29.11.2023 in

Crl.M.P.No.1042 of 2023 in C.C.No.507 of 2018 on the file of

the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kodad. The

offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

Perused the record.

3. The complainant, who is the petitioner herein is

questioning the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the

Magistrate Court. Initially, when the accused/respondent

was convicted, the sentence of imprisonment was suspended

for a period of twenty days to enable the accused to prefer an

appeal. However, an application was filed by the accused

seeking extension of twenty more days accordingly sentence

was suspended.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the learned Magistrate had committed error in granting

twenty more days for filing the appeal. The said grant of

time is in violation of the provision under Section 389 of

Cr.P.C. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras

High Court in Mr.P.Ramakrishnan Vs. Tmt.Rani Rambai 1 it

was held that:-

"The narration of above facts would clearly go to show that the present petition is not only highly misconceived but also it amounts to a clear abuse of process of Court. Under Section 389(3) of Cr.P.C the trial Court has got power to suspend the sentence for a maximum period within which an appeal is to be preferred by the convict as per the provisions of the Limitation Act. The learned Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to grant suspension beyond 30 days from the date

of imposition of sentence. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in returning the petition filed by the petitioner seeking extension of suspension of sentence. It needs to be mentioned that the date of conviction is on 19.10.2011 and the sentence was suspended rightly by the learned Magistrate till 18.11.2011".

5. In the said judgment, the High Court of Madras found

that when the Appeal itself was not pending before the

Sessions Court, the question of suspending the sentence by

the appellate Court does not arise.

6. In the present case, the accused had preferred an

appeal which was numbered as CFR No.144 of 2023. The

appeal was filed in time by the accused, however, the

appellate Court had not numbered the Appeal and the

consequent suspension was not done. In the facts of the

present case, the judgment of Madras High Court is not

applicable, since the Madras High Court was dealing with

the situation where appeal was not pending before Sessions