When Accused Seeks Blanket Order, Court Must Determine Whether Case Falls Under Exception: Andhra Pradesh HC
The Andhra Pradesh High Court was hearing a Criminal Petition of an accused under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that, when an accused seeks a blanket Order, it is the duty of the Court to determine whether the case falls under an exception.
The Court observed thus in a Criminal Petition preferred by an accused under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to set aside the Order of the Sessions Judge.
A Single Bench of Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi reiterated, “The learned Appellate Court in the impugned order referred to the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court but failed to consider the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court that, in general, an accused applies Section 389 CrPC to seek relief of suspension of sentence without any conditions. When an accused seeks a blanket order, it is the duty of the Court to determine whether the case falls under an exception.”
Advocate K.K. Durga Prasad appeared for the Petitioner while Public Prosecutor appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner/accused was convicted by the Magistrate for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). She was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to a pay a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs being the amount of cheque. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the Sessions Judge and in the Appeal, she filed a Petition under Section 389(1) CrPC, seeking suspension of sentence and payment of compensation amount imposed by the Magistrate.
The Sessions Judge permitted the Application by suspending the sentence of imprisonment on the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation within 60 days of the Order. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a Petition before the High Court to modify or set aside the Order of the First Appellate Court and the Court set aside the same. The case was remitted to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal. The Sessions Judge suspended the Magistrate’s Order, subject to deposit of 20% of compensation within 60 days. Challenging this, the Petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above regard, noted, “… in the case at hand, the learned Appellate Court proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner did not provide or state any reasons for claiming an exception. The learned Sessions Judge merely rephrased the earlier order by adopting a pedantic approach, which is incorrect in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, overlooked the fact that when an appellant seeks a blanket order, the Court must consider whether the case falls under an exception.”
The Court said that the Appellate Court was not intending to exercise its discretion and wanted to confirm its earlier Order and such an approach is not in accordance with legal principles, as observed by the Apex Court.
“… this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the learned First Appellate Court requires modification regarding the direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount ordered by the learned Magistrate”, it added.
The Court further took note of the submission made by the counsel that the Petitioner was a woman suffering form ill-health since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and was unable to procure 20% of the cheque amount being Rs. 2 lakhs.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petition and modified the Appellate Court’s Order from paying 20% to 10% of compensation amount.
Cause Title- Mekala Sudha Prameela Kantha v. The State & Anr.