THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.6463 of 2008 (Dated : 07-12-2011) Between: Dr.Bapathu Brahma Reddy ....Petitioner A n d Reddem Venkata Krishna Reddy and another ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.6463 of 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition has been ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2008 on the ﬁle of I Additional District Judge, Guntur to quash the order dated 23rd September, 2008 passed therein. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to ﬁling of this petition by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2008 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Guntur are:- The appellant herein suﬀered conviction for the oﬀence under Section 138 of N.I Act in C.C.No.182 of 2005 on the ﬁle of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. The appellant ﬁled Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2008 on the ﬁle of I Additional District Judge, Guntur assailing his conviction and sentence for the oﬀence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. He also moved Crl.M.P.No.124 of 2008 seeking suspension of sentence imposed on him for the oﬀence under Section 138 of N.I.Act pending disposal of the criminal appeal. 3. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner came to be suspended pending disposal of the criminal appeal. The learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur recalled the order of suspension of sentence since the appellant remained absent and his application to condone his absence ended in dismissal. 4. The instant application has been ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C., assailing the order dated 23-9-2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2008, which reads as hereunder:- “ This is an appeal to set aside the sentence of the I Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Narasaraopet in C.C.182/05 dt.27.3.2008 and to allow the appeal by acquitting the appellant. Appellant called absent. Petition ﬁled to condone absence is dismissed. Suspension of sentence withdrawn. Address lower court to take appellant into custody. Counsel not appeared to argue. Call on 26.9.08.” 5. While issuing notice to the 2nd respondent, this Court called for the remarks of I Additional District Judge, Guntur as to under what circumstances the order has been passed in Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2008. The learned Presiding Oﬃcer has submitted his remarks. Para (3) of the remarks need to be noted and it is thus:- “ I submit that on 23.09.2008 the petitioner absented himself. His counsel sought for an adjournment. The counsel was informed that arguments would be heard even in the absence of the petitioner. Then it was represented that the petitioner was held up at Hyderabad. Later a petition was ﬁled before this Court stating that the petitioner is suﬀering from seasonal fever. This Court then dismissed that application in Crl.M.P.No.361/2008 holding that there is no truth in the version mentioned therein. I submit that a copy of the petition ﬁled and the order thereon is enclosed for kind perusal. I submit that since a false representation was made to condone the absence of the petitioner, the petition was dismissed. Since Counsel was not prepared to argue the appeal, the order now been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court was passed. I submit that these are the circumstances under which the order has been passed.”. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not be present before the appellate Court because of his ill-health and his absence before the appellate Court on 23-9-2008 is not intentional. 8. The remarks oﬀered by the Presiding Oﬃcer indicate the circumstances under which the order of suspension of sentence of imprisonment granted earlier came to be recalled. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the appellate Court expressed his inability to proceed with the appeal. There being no other go to the appellate Court, it proceeded to cancel the suspension of sentence granted earlier. In the given facts and circumstances, the order impugned in this criminal petition cannot be said to be illegal or irregular warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.07-12-2011 RAR