Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
R.K. Amutha Kumar vs Agrovet Ltd., on 3 March, 2025
APHC010097022025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRIMINAL PETITION No:2114 OF 2025
Between:
R.K. Amutha Kumar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
M/s.Agrovet Ltd and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
Sri P.Sai Surya Teja
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
Ld. Public Prosecutor
The Court made the following order:
1. The petitioner is challenging the order, dated 19.11.2024,
passed by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs &
STs (POA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge,
West Godavari District, Eluru, in Crl.M.P. No.1520 of 2024 in
Crl.A.No.230 of 2024.
-2-
CRL.P. No.2114 of 2025
2. The learned Sessions Judge, while suspending the sentence,
has directed the petitioner to deposit 1/4th of the compensation
amount within a period of 60 days from the date of the order.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the time
for deposit of 1/4th of the compensation is over, the petitioner is
now facing non-bailable warrants which are issued for
noncompliance with the order of the learned Sessions Judge.
The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has a case
of merits and apart from the cheque, there was no other
document, which was filed by the de facto complainant before
the learned Magistrate, which tried for the offence under
Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The
learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Apex
Court reported in Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State
Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., and others1 and
also relied on the judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court
1
(2023) 10 SCC 446
-3-
CRL.P. No.2114 of 2025
reported in Alla Satish Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and
others2.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
learned Sessions Judge ought to have given a valid reason for
directing the deposit of 1/4th of the compensation amount and
that without assigning any reason, the order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside.
6. The consideration rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court at
paragraph 7 of the judgment in Jamboo Bhandari‘s case
(supra1), is contrary to the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner, which asserted that 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.
7. Considering the judgment of the coordinate bench in Alla
Satish Babu‘s case (supra2), in similar circumstances,
remanding the matter back to the learned Sessions Judge for
fresh consideration and also considering the submission that
the petitioner is unable to deposit the compensation as directed
by the learned Sessions Judge, this Court deems it appropriate
to remand the matter back to the learned Sessions Judge.
2
2024 SCC Online AP 3916
-4-
CRL.P. No.2114 of 2025
8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed off, directing the
petitioner to appear before the learned Sessions Judge within
10 days from the date of receipt of the order. On such
appearance, the learned Sessions Judge shall consider the
application afresh and dispose of the same as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within 7 days. Till then, the order of the
suspension granted by the learned Sessions Judge, dated
19.11.2024, shall stand extended. Needless to say, in the
event the petitioner fails to appear before the learned Sessions
Judge, as directed above, this order stands automatically
vacated.
9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition
shall stand closed.
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH. N
BV
[ad_1]
Source link