C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
BHIMAVARAM
Present:-Sri Pavan Kumar Aka,
Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram
Thursday, this the 25th day of April, 2024
C.C. No. 2 6 /2024
Between:
Kurakula Sri Lakshmi Tulasi, S/o. Pitchiah @ Hema Prasad, Aged 39 years, Private Employee, R/o. Kalla (V) & (M), W. G. District. …. Complainant
and
Syed Mahamad Rafi, S/o. Peer Ahmad, Aged 35 years, Business, R/o. D.No.9-351, Narayanapuram, H/o. Nadikudi (V), Dachepalli Mandal. Guntur District. …. Accused
This case is comingon 18-04-2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.V.Narasimha Rao and D. Willingston, Advocates for the Complainant, and of Sri P.Vijaya Saradhi, Advocate for the accused, and after hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-
JUDGMENT
1.This is a complainant filed under section 190 and 200 Cr.P.C against the accused alleging the offence punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short – ‘the Act’).
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that :
The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five
Lakhs only) from the Complainant on 09.02.2020 for his family welfare, investment in his business and to discharge his sundry debts duly executing a
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
2 promissory note on the even date agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% p.m., payable to the Complainant or on her order on demand and thereafter the accused issued a cheque bearing No.212828 drawn on his current account with State Bank of India, Nadikudi Branch on 14.03.2022 as part payment and the said cheque is presented for realisation on 18.04.2022 for encashment with her Bank of Baroda branch under her account no.52300100002366 and the said cheque has been returned unpaid with an endorsement of ‘exceeds arrangement’ vide cheque return memo dt.20.04.2022 and as such, the complainant got issued one demand legal notice dt.29.04.2022 and the accused refused to receive the said legal notice and was returned on 02.05.2022, having no other go, the complainant filed this case to punish the accused u/s.138 of the Act.
3.After taking cognizance of the offence u/s.138 of the Act under
Summary Trial registering the case as S.T.C.No.5/2022 against the accused as per the Act and also as per the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Re. Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act 1, summons are issued and on appearance, copies of documents are furnished u/s.207 of
Cr.P.C., and thereafter the accused is examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C., and upon explaining the substance of accusation for the offence punishable u/s.138 r/w 142 of the Act, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the accused is directed to adduce his defence evidence if any, keeping in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank
Association .v. Union of India2 after duly noting the documents of complainant as Exs.P1 to P6, apart from examining the complainant as P.W.1.
4. On closure of complainant evidence and on perusing the evidence of P.W.1, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, for the 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 325 2 (2014) 5 SCC 590
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
3 incriminating material of evidence against them, for which the accused denied the incriminating material and adduced defence evidence.
5. To rebut the presumptions, the accused examined himself as
D.W.1 and exhibited Ex.D1 to D3 also while conducting cross examination of the Complainant. After conducting of cross examination of the Complainant by the accused, considering the material so far brought on record and keeping in view of the rival contentions, this court by opining that conducting the proceedings under Summary Trial is not just and proper and requires conducting of Summons Procedure Trial and as such, the proceedings of
Summary Trial is converted into Summons Trial and the case has been deleted from the Register of Summary Trials and is assigned with the present
Calendar Case number.
6. Perused the record and now the points for determination is:
Whether the dishonoured Cheque was issued by accused in discharge of legally enforceable and dischargeable debt and the accused committed the offence punishable u/s.138 r/w 142 of the Act or not ?
7. Now to determine the above points, when this court perused the material on record:
To substantiate the contentions, the Complainant exhibited the
Original Promissory Note said to have been executed by the accused for
Rs.5,00,000/- dt.09.02.2020 / Ex.P2 to say as to existence of legally enforceable debt and to say that in discharge of the said debt, the accused issued the cheque, got exhibited the cheque bearing No.212828, dt.14.03.2022 for Rs.4,90,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Narayanapuram
Branch under Account No.35159682663 of Accused /Ex.P1. The complainant further exhibited the cheque pay in slip dt.18.04.2023 / Ex.P3, which is returned unpaid got exhibited the cheque return memo with an endorsement
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
4 of “Exceeds Arrangement” dt.20.04.2022/Ex.P4. As to making demand for repayment covered under the said dishonoured cheque, the complainant got exhibited the office copy of legal notice dt.30.08.2023 / Ex.P5 and the postal track obtained from website / Ex.P6 to say that it is received by accused.
8. To rebut the presumptions, the accused / Syed Mahamod Rafi while examining himself as D.W.1., deposed that he does not know the complainant and he never executed any promissory note in this case and he does not know the attestors and the cheque is not filled by him and he is not having any due to be discharged to the Complainant and he does not know how the cheque and promissory note came to the hands of the complainant and his signature is forged.
9. Before appreciating the evidences and arguments of both the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the basic ingredients of Section 138 of the Act which are as follows.
a. The accused issued the cheque on an account maintained by them with a Bank.
b. The said cheque had been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a “legally enforceable debt or other liability." c. The said cheque had been presented to the Bank within the period of its validity.
d. The aforesaid cheque when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonoured either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that Bank.
e. The Payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque.
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
5 f. The Drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment within 15 days on the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.
10. So it is clear that the drawer of a cheque shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Act only when the aforesaid ingredients are satisfied.
11. It is no where denied by the defence that the cheque bearing No.
212828 does not belongs to the the account maintained by them with his State
Bank of India. The said cheque is for Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs, Fifty
Thousand Only) on 16-3-2019. The said cheques had been presented to the bank on 18.04.2022 through Bank of Baroda, Kalla Branch within the period of its validity from the date of cheques dated 16-03-2019. After presentation for en-cashment by the complainant, the said cheque was returned unpaid on 20- 4-2022 for the reasons of “exceeds arrangement”. Thereafter the complainant got issued demand legal notice, dated 29.04.2022 i.e., within 30 days from the date of receipt of information by them. On receipt of the said legal notice, the accused neither paid the amount under the legal notice, nor got issued reply legal notice. The accused denied the very existence of legally enforceable debt and the issuance of the present cheque in discharge of such legally enforceable debt. But he has not denied his signatures on
Ex.P.1/cheque and on Ex.P2 / Promissory note. Except these two points the remaining all ingredients are satisfied.
12. Now while answering the same: The evidence of PW.1 and
D.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidences produced by them and the cross examination of both parties is to be discussed in detail.
13. During the cross examination of D.W.1, the accused admitted that the cheque in question belongs to him, but added that he does not know how
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
6 his cheque went to the hands of complainant and stated that he has no acquaintance with the complainant and he does not know how they forged his signature and he does not know the contact number of the complainant and he never spoken with them and he has not received legal notice in this case and he does not know as to dishonour of his cheque and he never tried for compromise. He further admitted that after issuance of Warrant by this court for his appearance, he was informed by the police and thereafter he appeared
before this court and sought for cancellation of the same.
14. When this cross examination is perused, the accused took the contention of forgery of his signatures on the cheque and promissory note and pleaded ignorance as to how those two documents came to the hands of complainant. Needless to say that the promissory note / Ex.A2 is the
Negotiable Instrument for which the presumptions u/s.118 of the Act prevails, until the contrary is proved and for such proving contrary, it is the settled law that the accused need not adduce any evidence of his own and can depend upon the latches on the part of the complainant and is sufficient enough to create the preponderance of Probabilities. But coming to the aspect of the plea of forgery, it is for the accused only to prove the same, as per Sec.106 of
Indian Evidence Act, as it is in his specific knowledge only. Though the accused took the plea of forgery, no effort has been made before this Court to substantiate his contention as to forgery. Hence, the plea of forgery remained as plea only without any proof. Under such circumstances, the Exs.P1 and P2 are to be believed as that are executed and issued by the accused only and thereby the existence of debt can be believed.
15. But at the same time, when the cross examination of the
Complainant is perused, during cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that she studied 10th class in Kalla Village and completed her Diploma in Survey in
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
7
Podili of Prakasam District and admitted that the accused is neither her classmate from 1st to 10th or in Diploma nor resided in Kalla Village, including nearby her house. She deposed that she never did any business along with accused and there is no family friendship between both their families. While deposing as to her family details, she stated that her parents have 2 daughters and admitted that the accused is having no nexuas either with her sister or with her husband. While denying the suggestion of accused as to having no acquaintance with her husband, she stated that her husband is working as conducted in RTC and her marriage is performed in the year 2015.
she further admitted that by the time of her marriage itself, her husband is working in RTC Narasaraopet Depot and at present her husband is working in
Guntur-2 Depot and the approximate salary of her husband bh 2020 is around
Rs.20,000/- and by 2020, she is working as Surveyor in Doddanapudi Village in Gram Sachivalayam and by that time, her salary is Rs.15,000/- and that she and her husband are living away from her relatives and they are having one daughter and by 2020, her daughter is studying 6th class, staying at her parents house. She further admitted that out of their earnings, she and her husband are eking livelihood duly meeting out daily expenditure including the academic expenditure of their daughter and further stated that they are residing in a rented house and the accused maintained clothes business and a net center when she lent amount and she has not visited such business shops of accused and she does not know his liabilities, but she know the assets of the accused and the accused is having agricultural lands, house site on his name……… (continue from page No.2)...
16. Now considering the above material, the learned counsel for accused took the contentions that, the complainant has no financial capacity to lend that much amount and filed this false case by taking the blank documents of accused available with her mother for wrongful gain to harass
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
8 the accused and, lending of that much amount to unknown person without any enquiry itself is sufficient ground to believe the version of the accused and presenting the cheque nearly after one month for realization is also a ground to believe the threatening nature of complainant and thereby the accused created the preponderance of probabilities of his defence. Per contra, the learned counsel for complainant says that the accused taken hot and cold contentions by stating that he does not know as to how the said documents came to the hands of Complainant and again stating that the documents are with the mother of complainant and at one time taking the plea of forgery and at the other time, stating that the blank signed documents are pressed into service.
17. Considering the rival contentions, as observed and discussed supra, the plea of forgery is not believed as not proved. Hence coming to the other aspects of either financial capacity of P.W.1 and the probabilities of taking advantage of the blank signed documents of accused lying with the mother of complainant, which might have been pressed into service, through this complainant, admittedly and evidently as contended by the learned counsel for complainant, the accused has not taken any steps against the mother of complainant or against the complainant for the alleged misusing of the documents. Hence, the accused has not discharged the same in full. At the same time, while arguing, the learned counsel for complainant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa .v. Sri Mohan 3 .
So far it is the settled that from that Judgment that when once the signatures of the disputed documents are believed as that of accused, it is for the accused to rebut the presumption. Considering the material on hand, though the accused took the plea of forgery, as observed and discussed supra, he 3AIR 2010 SC 1898
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
9 failed to substantiate his plea of forgery and thereby the observations of the case of Rangappa 3 are applicable to the case on hand.
18. But coming to the aspect of financial capacity, admittedly and evidently, P.W.1 says that by the date of lending of amount in the year 2020, her monthly income is Rs.15,000/- and her husband is of Rs.30,000/-.
Thereby their earnings would be around Rs.45,000/-. When it is her admission that they are residing in a rented house and their daughter is studying 6th class, procuring Rs.5,00,000/- for lending the amount is to be properly appreciated. The accused took the plea of financial incapacity to lend that much amount. For this, it is the contention of the P.W.1 that by selling away his share of property which devolved to her from her parents to the extent of her share, she lent the amount, but she has not filed any documentary evidence to show as to her possession of that much amount by that date and though she added that she can file the same, no such proof of document either as to possessing that much amount or even to selling of any such property is filed before this court. On this particular aspect, the complainant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Rohitbhai J Patel .v. The State of Gujarat 4 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that by virtue of Sec.118 and 139 of the Act, needless to reiterate that the result of such presumption is that existence of a legally enforceable debt is to be presumed in favour of the Complainant and when such a presumption is drawn, the factors relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards the source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not. With such observations only, this court proceeded further.
4Criminal Appeal No.508/2019
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
10
19. To counter blast the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant as to the judgments relied upon as mentioned above, the learned counsel for accused relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of K. Dhanabakkiyam .v. M/s. Thirumala Wall Decors & Suncontrols rep. by its Partner 5 , wherein the Hon’ble High Court opined that failure to establish the case by the complainant beyond all reasonable doubt that she had lent a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- lead to the acquittal, duly observing in its para 26 and 27 as follows:
26. ……….
27……..
But in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra, the legally enforceable debt is to be presumed in favour of the complainant, this judgment is of no way helpful to the contentions of accused in this regard i.e., proving of the legally enforceable debt.
20. Again the learned counsel for accused relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Jain .v. Dinesh
Kumar Jain 6 , wherein the Hon’ble High Court duly referring the judgments of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Basalingappa .v. Mudibasappa 7 and
Meters and Instruments Private Limited .v. Kanchan Mehta 8 , opined in Para
No.14 as:
14. …. …
21. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Hyderabad at Hyderabad in the case of K. Venkata Krishna Prasad .v. Peram
Sai Swarupa and Another 9 , wherein it is opined in Para No.12 as:
12. …...
5Criminal Appeal No.152/2017 62022 [1] ALT (Crl.) 363 7(2019) 5 SCC 418 8(2018) 1 SCC 560 9[2017] 1 ALT (Cri) 259
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
11
22. The learned counsel for accused also relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S. Murugan .v. M.K. Karunagaran 10 , observed and opined in its para No.4 and 6 as:
4……
6. ….
23. The learned counsel for accused also relied upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basalingappa .v. Mudibasappa and also in
the case of Rajaram, S/o. Sriramulu Naidu (since deceased) through L.Rs., .v.
Maruthachalam (since deceased) through L.Rs. 11 , wherein it is opined that the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities and to rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence lead by him or the accused can also rely on the material submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence and he inference of the preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties, but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
24. Considering the observations of the various Appellate Courts, as observed supra, when this court again perused the material on record, as to whether the accused is able to create even as to the preponderance of probabilities of his defence, apart from taking the plea of forgery, financial incapacity of the complainant, the accused also took the plea of his handing over of blank signed promissory note and cheque to the mother of complainant in relation of certain financial transactions and pressing the said documents in to service in this case, the complainant admitted the Registered unpossessory mortgage relinquishment receipt dt.29.08.2017 under
Doc.No.3859/2017 / Ex.D1. The recitals of such Ex.D1 makes it clear that the accused unpossessory mortgage in favour of one Bandaru Manga Tayaru, 10Crl.Appeal No. Not mentioned of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 7618/2023), dt.31.10.2023 112023 LiveLaw (SC) 46
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
12
W/o. Gopala Swamy on 12.07.2017 under Doc.No.2748/2017 for
Rs.2,50,000/- and the same was discharged under Ex.D1. Now coming to the said Ex.D1, the complainant/P.W.1 admitted that the executant by name
Manga Tayaru is her mother and also identified the photo of her mother. She also admitted the copy of adhar card / Ex.D2, which is annexed to the
Unpossessary Registered mortgage deed dt.12.07.2017 belongs to her mother and further admitted the signature of her mother on an consent agreement deed (unregistered) dt.13.07.2017 / Ex.D3. From it, it can inferred that the accused has financial transactions with the mother of P.W.1. From the recitals of Ex.D2 annexed document unpossessory mortgaging the property of accused in the name of the mother of P.W.1 for an amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- is admittedly brought on record and the discharge of the same is also brought on record from the recitals of Ex.D1 / Receipt. From this, it can be understood as the said debt has been discharged only, the said Ex.D1 is being executed. Now by exhibiting the admitted Ex.D3, the contention of the accused is that the mother of complainant and the accused entered into a mutual consent that in fact on 12.07.2017 he borrowed an amount of
Rs.8,00,000/0 with certain terms of repayment, failing which the property covered under Registered Unpossessory mortgage deed dt.12.07.2017 under
Doc.No.2748/2017 can be retained with her with absolute rights. When these admitted recitals are perused, it can be understood that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.8 lakhs on 12.07.2017, but executed Ex.D2 for
Rs.2,50,000/-. In this connection, it is the contention of the accused that to avoid unnecessary stamp duty only, the amount is reduced to Rs.2,50,000/-, but to stand for truth of the transactions, Ex.D3 is also executed. When such is so, as these two documents are made on consequential dates, the contentions of the accused appears to be reliable. When such is so, without discharge of the said debt i.e., either of Rs.2.5 lakhs or Rs.8 lakhs, the question of execution of Ex.D1 does not arise. So from it, the debt was
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
13 discharged. When such debt was discharged, how the contentions of giving of blank signed promissory note and cheque given to the mother of complainant lies with her only is also to be scrutinized in a proper and cogent way. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that during the cross examination of
P.W.1, she stated that though her mother executed Ex.D1 and still the accused needs to pay a balance of interest. She further admitted that the accused paid an amount of Rs.7,500/- on 04.05.2018 to her State Bank of
India A/c.No.33062173308 and the accused also transferred an amount of
Rs.7,500/- in the month of May, 2018 by way of Phonepay to the contact number of her husband. When such is her admission, when there are no financial transactions between the accused and either with her or with her husband, the necessity of accused to transfer such amounts to their accounts is to be explained by the complainant only. Surprisingly, she has not taken any steps to defend herself as to such payments received.
25. The record shows from the admission of P.W.1 that accused is neither a class mate to her nor resided in Kalla at any point of time. But at the same time, the complainant admitted that one Tumala Brahmachari, the friend of her husband and the accused, whose adhar card is annexed both to
Exs.D1 and D2 and the recitals under Exs.D2 and D3 are also true and correct and also admitted that to reduce the stamp duty for the purpose of registration, the value is shown as Rs.2.50 lakhs instead of Rs.8 lakhs. When such is the admitted evidence and the specific contentions, certainly, even a common prudent man can say that there are possibilities of occurrence of the defence taken by the accused. Under such circumstances, it is for the complainant to rebut such presumptions. But the complainant has not adduced any other evidence to shift the onus. The alleged transaction under
Ex.P2 is in the year 2020 and when it is so, the transfer of amounts in the year 2018 itself to the account of complainant and her husband is to be properly
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
14 explained by the complainant only, which appears that she has not succeeded to do so and thereby leaving a space to believe the version of the accused.
26. It is also relevant to note from the observations of the Hon’ble
Appellate Courts from time to time, that for mere existence of presumptions in favour of complainant / holder of documents itself is not sufficient, when the circumstances or the defence taken by accused raises a suspicion, it is again
for the complainant to re-shift the onus. When the complainant failed to
answer all the above in a cogent way, the preponderance of probabilities of the defence taken by the accused as to his giving of blank signed promissory note and cheque given to the mother of P.W.1 is pressed into service through
P.W.1 can be believed. The complainant might have lent the amount as deposed, keeping in view of earlier financial transactions of the accused with her mother. But in view of the above transactions, the complainant ought to have adduced proper and cogent evidence to prove her case. Except deposing evidence of her own, she neither examined her mother, husband nor any of the witnesses either to reshift the onus or to prove Ex.P2. When such is the circumstances, as it is the settled law that when two views are possible based on the circumstances, the benefit shall always be given to the accused.
27. Thus thereby upon having a detailed observations, discussions and the material placed before this court makes it clear that though the accused took the plea of forgery, the same remained as plea without any proof and thereby the burden is on the accused to shift the onus, in terms of the presumptions available to the complainant as per Sec.118 and 139 of the Act.
The material on record, upon which this court made detailed observations as supra, though the financial capacity is questioned, non production of any sufficient proof of earnings though not necessary as usual, but requires necessary based on circumstances and apart from all that, when it is the
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
15 specific contention of the accused that when he issued blank signed promissory note and cheque in relation of the transactions with the mother of
P.W.1 and were pressed into service without returning the same to the accused, the evidence shows and makes it clear that the accused is able to create the preponderance of probabilities of his defence, by exhibiting the payments made to the account of complainant and her husband, after discharge of mortgage debt. Thereby, the accused is able to rebut the presumptions and the complainant failed to reshift the onus on the shoulders of the accused and thereby, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
28. In the result, by giving the benefit, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/s.138 r/w 142 of NI Act and accordingly he is acquitted u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C., His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The accused shall furnish a bond u/s.437-A Cr.P.C., that he shall appear before the Appellate Court in the event of his receiving summons within six months from today and consequently, the complaint stands dismissed.
Typed directly on my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 25 th day of April, 2024.
Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
BHIMAVARAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant:- For Defence:-
PW.1: K. Sri Lakshmi TulasiDW.1:Syed Mahamod Rafi
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant :-
Ex.P1: Cheque bearing No.212828, Dt. 14.03.2022. Ex.P2: Promissory note dt.09.02.2020. Ex.P3: Cheque pay-in-slip.
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
16
Ex.P4: Cheque return memo, dt. 20.04.2022. Ex.P5: Office copy of legal notice, dt.29.04.2022. Ex.P6: Online track consignment obtained from website .
For Defence:- Ex.D1 : Registered unpossessory mortgage relinquishment receipt dt. 29.07.2017 under doc.no.3859/2017. Ex.D2 : Photo copy of Aadhar Card which is annexed to the unpossessory registered mortgage agreement dt.12.07.2017 belongs to the mother of PW1. Ex.D3 : Signature of the mother of PW.1 on an consent agreement deed (unregistered), Dt.13.07.2017.
Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
BHIMAVARAM
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
17
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: BHIMAVARAM
C.C.No.26/2024
1.Date of Offence : 14.03.2022
2.Date of filing: 18.05.2022
3.Date of Apprehension of: --- accused
4.Date of Released on Bail: ---
5.Date of commencement of : 30.08.2023 Trial
6.Date of closure of Trial: 14.03.2024
7.Date of sentence or order: 25.04.2024
8.Name of the Complainant: Kurakula Sri Lakshmi Tulasi, S/o. Pitchiah @ Hema Prasad, Aged 39 years, Private Employee, R/o. Kalla (V) & (M), W. G. District.
9.Description of Accused: Syed Mahamad Rafi, S/o. Peer Ahmad, Aged 35 years, Business, R/o. D.No.9-351, Narayanapuram, H/o. Nadikudi (V), Dachepalli Mandal. Guntur District.
10.Nature of Offence: U/s.138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act
11.Plea of Accused: Pleaded not guilty
12.Finding of Court: Not Guilty
13. Explanation for delay: Non production of witnesses by the Complainant.
14. Sentence or Order In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of
Cr.P.C. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. The accused shall furnish a bond under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., that he shall appear before the appellate court in the event he receives summons within six months from
C.C.No.26/2024, Dt.25.04.2024
JFCM, BVRM
18 today. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed.
Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
BHIMAVARAM
Copies submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.