CRLP/1026/2009 of Marripalle Naresh, Vs The State of A.P., on 31 December 2010

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearingfor the petitioners in both these Criminal petitions and the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-state. Notices were ordered to the second respondent in boththese petitions at the stage of admission. Notices were served butthey did not turn up.

2. Having regard to the circumstances in which theimpugned order came to be passed in each of these two petitionsand as the point involved is the same, both these petitions aredisposed of by this Common order.

3. These Criminal petitions came to be filed in the followingcircumstances :

The petitioners in both these petitions are different and theyare complainants in C.C. No.78 of 2007 and C.C.No.77 of 2007respectively on the file of the Court of Judicial First ClassMagistrate, Rajampet. Both the cases have been instituted asprivate complaints alleging offences punishable under Section 138read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is notnecessary to go into the other details.

4. The trial Court after considering the matters and uponcontest by separate judgments dated 28-08-2008, convicted theaccused for the above offences in each of the said cases andsentenced each of them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for sixmonths but without imposing fine, it awarded a compensation ofRs.5,00,000/- in each case under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. whichconstitutes the cheque amount in each case.

5. Both the accused filed separate Criminal Appeals. Theaccused in C.C. No.78 of 2007 filed Criminal Appeal No.105 of2008 and along with that appeal he filed Crl.M.P No.57 of 2008 forsuspension of sentences. In the petition i.e. in Crl.M.P. No.57 of2008, the accused also made a mention that he was filing aseparate petition for suspension of the order relating to payment ofcompensation.

6. Similarly, the accused in C.C. No.77 of 2007 preferredCriminal Appeal No.104 of 2008 against his conviction andsentences. Along with that Appeal, he also filed Crl.M.P. No.58 of 2008, for suspension of the sentences and in that petition also hementioned that he was filing a separate petition for suspension ofthe order relating to payment of the compensation.

7. The appellate Court i.e. the III Additional District Judge’sCourt Kadapa at Rajampet in both the above Criminal M.Pspassed separate orders, but it would be sufficient to note theseparate order passed in Crl.M.P. No.57 of 2008 and it reads asfollows :

“Heard both sides. The substantial sentenceand conviction imposed against the appellant by thetrial Court is suspended subject to the appellantdepositing an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the credit of theC.C. before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Rajampet and also on his execution of self bond forRs.20,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum tothe satisfaction of the trial Court”.

In Criminal M.P.No.58 of 2008 i.e., in Criminal AppealNo.104 of 2008, the very same above order has been repeated.

8. It should be noted that normally when a Criminal Appeal isfiled from a conviction, it is the usual practice for the appellateCourt to suspend only the substantive sentence of imprisonmentwhile directing him to pay the fine amount. In this case, no fineswere imposed in both the cases but respective accused thereinwere directed to pay compensation under Section 357 (3) ofCr.P.C. However, both the above orders read that the AppellateCourt observed that only substantial sentence and convictionimposed against the Appellants in each case were suspended

thereby indicating that the Appellate Court proceeded to suspendthe conviction as well without indicating what substantial sentenceit was suspending. The Appellate Court, it can be said that withoutgiving any reasons proceeded to suspend the conviction withoutgiving any reasons for doing so and without indicating what itmeant by using the word ‘substantial sentence’ and whatsubstantial sentence it was suspending. This approach of theappellate Court, in my opinion, cannot be said to be correct. In thecircumstances, I am of the opinion that both these CriminalPetitions should be allowed and the impugned orders should be setaside and the matters should be sent back to the Appellate Courti.e. III Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Rajampet to passappropriate orders after hearing both sides. Accordingly they areallowed.

9. It is seen that the trial Court in each of the above calendarcases granted suspension of sentences to the respective accusedin order to enable them to file appeals. In the specialcircumstances of this case, the suspension of the sentencesgranted by the trial Court to the accused in each case shall becontinued for a further period of six (6) weeks and they shall takesteps to pursue their Criminal Petitions for suspension ofsentences in their Criminal Appeals and also other petitions to befiled by them, as expeditiously as possible within the above periodof six (6) weeks. Thereupon, the appellate Court may passappropriate orders according to law, in these matters.

__________________

Dated: 31-12-2010Dsh.

N. RAVI SHANKAR, J