Mulpuri Venkata Ramana Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to modify or set aside the order to the extent of imposing the condition to deposit 20yo of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court as passed through the order dated 2410-2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.554/2024 passed in Crl.Appeal No.199 of 2024 on the file of the ln the court of the ll Addl Sessions Judge Guntur against the order dated 4.10.2024 passed in C.C.No.160 of 2018 on the

¶16

€l

¶17

file of the special Jud'lcial Magistrate First Class for Prohibition and Excise (Junior D'lvision) Guntur.

¶18

I.A`- NO.. 1^{OF 2O25}

¶19

I" petit'lon under section 528 of BNSS pray-lng that in the circumstances stated 'ln the Memorandum Of Grounds Of Criminal Pet-ltion, the High Court may be Pleased tO Stay the Order dated 24.10.2024 passed in crl.M.P.No.554/2024 passed in Crl. Appeal No.199 of 2024 on the file Of the " Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, Guntur Distr-lot., Pending disposal of the crim'lnal pet-ltion.

¶20

This Petition coming On for hearing, upon Perusing the Memorandum of Grounds Of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments Of smt. Marella Radha, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Ass'lstant Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

¶21

The Court made the following Order|.

¶22

S

¶23

APHCO10059O42025

¶24

EEife= lNtTsp:Re::::lFG8H:CgA:nTUaA:J:uA:RsF£:vcN£::Tn:A

¶25

[3368]

¶26

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHl

¶29

qulNAL PETITION NO: 126Q±2P2±;i

¶30

Between :

¶31

1.MULPURI VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, S/O. SEETHA RAMI REDDY, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O. SYAMALA NAGAR, GUNTUR, TOWN GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶32

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶33

AND

¶34

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATH I .

¶35

2.DEVASOTHU BHASHA NAIK, S/0. RAGHU NAIK, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O. AMINABAD, PHIRANGIPURAM MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶36

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶37

Counsel for the petitioner/accused:

¶38

MARELLA RADHA

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(s):

¶40

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶41

The Court made`the followln/g:

¶42

§

¶43

2

¶44

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶45

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1260 of 2025

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused, under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the order dated 24.10.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.554 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.199 of 2024 on the file of learned ll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

¶48

Heard Smt.Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶49

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 24.10.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.554 of 2024 under Section 430 (1) of BNSS 2023, directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount, as ordered by the learned Trial Judge within 60 days from the date of the order, while suspending the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Magistrate. He would further 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.

¶50

I

¶51

3

¶52

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the state and would submit that the Appellate Court has power tO order the appell`ant to deposit such sum, which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation amount awarded by the tr'lal court in an appeal against the conv.lotion u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶53

ln a recent judgment Of the Honorable Apex Court in the case of Muskan Enterpr-lses and another Versus the State of punjab and another, observed that the Appellate Court has discretion not to order the deposit of 20O/o of the amount under section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in appropriate and exceptional cases. The leamed Sessions Judge -ln the Order did not spec-lfy how the present case would not fall under the category of appropriate and exceptional cases.

¶54

lt is an undiSPuted fact that the Petitioner Was COnViCted for the offence under sect|lon 138 of the Negot'lable Instruments Act by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate Sentenced the petit®loner to s-lmple imprisonment for a per-lod of six (o6) months and ordered him to pay Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) as compensation. The petitioner/accused Subsequently filed an appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Magistrate. ln the case of Jamboo Bhandar-I v. M.P. State Industrial Development corporat'lon Ltd., & Ors., referred above, the Honlble Apex Court

¶55

4

¶56

held that when an accused applies under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for the suspension of sentence, they typically seek the grant of relief without any conditions. Therefore, when the appellants sought a blanket order, the Court had to determine whether the case fell under an exception. Consequently, when an application is filed by the appellant under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for the suspension of sentence, it is presumed that the appellant is seeking suspension without any conditions. The Court's duty is to ascertain whether the case falls under an exception or not, to impose conditions as prescribed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶57

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, Muskan Enfterprises and another versus the State of Punjab and another3, and reported judgment of this court in Crl.P.No.5914 of 2024 dated 28.08.2024, held that, "r,orma//y, 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

¶58

1 2019 (ll) SCC 341

¶59

2 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776

¶60

3 2024 lNSC 1046

¶61

¢..

¶62

5

¶63

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 AppeIIant 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 com-Ing tO Such conclusion must be recordedi' .

¶64

ln 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., whether it warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20yo of the fine/compensat'IOn amount?

¶65

ln those C'lrCumStanCeS, the impugned Order Of the learned Appellate Court is Set Side and restored the application filed by the appellant U/s.430 of BNSS before the Appellate Court. The petitioner/accused sha" 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

¶66

S

¶67

6

¶68

consider the application afresh and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within seven (07) days, Till

¶69

then, the sentence 'lmposed by the learned trial Court stands suspended. lf the petitioner/accused fails to appear before the learned AppeIIate Court as directed above, the Criminal Petition stands dismissed without recourse to the Court.

¶70

10, Accordingly, the Criminal Petition js disposed of at the

¶71

stage of admission.

¶72

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall

¶73

sd/- u SRIDEVI ASSISTANT

¶74

//TRUE COPY//

¶75

SECTION OFFICER