Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Penkey Lakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 September, 2025
■ \
APHC010463022025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9202 OF 2025
Between:
Penkey Lakshmi, W/o (Late) Sivanadh Kumar, Aged 55 yrs 18, Andhra
Battalion, NCC, Siddartha Nagar, NPCL Road, Kakinada,
East Godavari (Kakinada) District.
...Petitioner/Appellant/Accused
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court
at Amaravathi.
2. Chinnapuvvula Naresh, S/o Plugeswara Rao, Aged 50 yrs, Seshagiram
Street, Ramaraopeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District.
...Respondents/Respondents/Complainants
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 Quash the part of the Impugned Order passed in CrI M.P.
No.25 of 2024 in C.A.No.32 of 2024 dated 02.02.2024 by the ill Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada only to an extent of imposing condition
of "Depositing Rs.2,00.000/- in the Trial Court on or before 01.03.2024 failing
which the suspension of sentence is automatically cancelled" by allowing the
Criminal Petition.
f
lA NO: 2 OF 2025
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 Stay part of the Impugned Order passed in CrI.M.P. No.25
of 2024 in C.A.No.32 of 2024 dated 02-02-2024 by the III Additional District
and Sessions Judge , Kakinada only to an extent of imposing condition of
"depositing of Rs.2,00,000/- in the Trial Court on or before 01.03.2024 failing
which the suspension of sentence is automatically cancelled" pending
disposal of the main Criminal Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
Counsel for Respondent No.2: -
The Court made the following order:
APHC010463022025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
at AMARAVATl [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
rriMIM»' °-=TmnN NO: 9202/2025
Between;
KAKINADA, east GODAVARI (KAKINADA) DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
by ITS PUBLIC
•1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI.
2,CH1NNAPUWULA NARESH, s/0 PLUGESWARA RAO, AGED 50 EAST
YRS,
SESHAGIRAM STREET, RAMARAOPETA KAKINADA,
GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/CONlPLAINANT(S);
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1.RS1VASAI SWARUP
Counsel for the Respondent/coniplainant(S);
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita has been filed, by the Petitioner/ Accused, seeking quashment of the
order in CrI M.P. No.25/2024 in C.A.No.32/2024 dt.02-02-2024 on the file of
the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada.
2. Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and acceded to,
by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the subject matter of this
Criminal Petition is squarely covered by the Order passed by this Court vide
Criminal Petition No.5914 of 2024, dated 28.08.2024, wherein, it was held at
paras 7 and 8 as under:
7.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P.
State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Others^
referring above para in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal @
Colonel S.S.Deswal and others, held in paras 6 to 9 as under:
b.
What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation
should be made of Section 148 of the N.l. Act Hence, normally.
Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of
deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where
the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of
20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to
deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can
be made for the reasons specifically recorded.
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776
3
1. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer under
Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been
convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.l. Act, it is
always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an
exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence
without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the
fine/compensation amount. >As stated earlier, if the Appellate
Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the
reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.
8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor
before the High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants
that an exception may be made in these cases and the
requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be
dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not made
by the appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts to
consider the said plea.
9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused
applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of
sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of
sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order
is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether
the case falls in exception or not. "
8. Therefore, in the light of above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, normally, the Appellate Court will be justified in imposing condition of
deposit as provided in Section 148 of N.l.Act. 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
4 i
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.
"
4.
Considering the submissions made and following the Order passed by
this Court in Criminal Petition No.5914 of 2024, dated 28.08.2024, this
Criminal Petition is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Appellate
Court is set side and restoring 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 within
three (3) weeks 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.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- M SRINIVAS
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge. Kakinada, East Godavari
District.
2. One CC to Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [OUT]
4. Three CD Copies
GPC
sree
■n*
HIGH COURT
DATED: 04/09/2025
ORDER
CRLP NO. 9202 OF 2025 (9 1 1 SEP 2025 % ^V>Ci»wmS«cliii)Xty ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION