MANNAM RAVI KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed by the petitioner challenging the order in Crl.M.P.No.24 of 2018 in Crl.A.No.72 of 2018 pending on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

(2.) The 2nd respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ongole, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and after full fledged trial, the learned Magistrate find the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 12,89,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, filed an appeal in Crl.A.No72 of 2018, which is pending on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, along with a petition for interim suspension of the execution of sentence under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein the learned Sessions Judge while suspending the sentence directed the petitioner to deposit ? .. "th of the cheque amount within two weeks from the date, besides other conditions. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal petition is filed with a prayer to modify the order so far as the direction to deposit ? .. "th of the fine amount is concerned, on the ground that the 2nd respondent-complainant is a finance company, having its branches all over India and obtained mortgage of the property besides obtaining cheques as security for due payment of the amount and the appellate court, without appreciating the contentions, mechanically passed impugned order, directing the petitioner to deposit ? .. "th of the cheque amount, the court has to take into consideration various attending circumstances to safeguard the interest of both the parties, but the court failed to consider various contentions raised by the petitioner, passed the impugned order erroneously and prayed to set aside the direction to deposit ? .. "th of the cheque amount.

(3.) During hearing, Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, the learned Senior Counsel strenuously contended that the entire property of the petitioner is the subject matter of the mortgage created in favour of the 2nd respondent and that he has no properties even to sell and comply the directions to deposit ? ... "th of the cheque amount and apart from that exparte award was passed by the Arbitrator for recovery of the amount due, and therefore, he is in a position to comply the direction, the petitioner has to undergo imprisonment, which is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner.