Smt D.Durga Kalyani

 IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TIRUVURU.

Present: Sri.S.Damodara Rao, M.A.,LL.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge.

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2015.

New. C.C.No. 20 /2015. Old C.C.2 214 /201 2 . 

Between:­

Gurram.Venkateswara rao S/o Narayana, aged 43 years,Hindu, Business, R/o Tiruvuru village & Mandal, Krishna District. ….Complainant.

And

Kambham.Venkata kesava prakash S/o Tirupataiah, Hindu, aged ­­ years, Asstant Manager, Shriram Chits Pvt.Ltd., Tiruvuru Branch,Tiruvuru village and Mandal, Krishna District. …Accused.

This case is coming on 11­5­2015 before this court for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Apparao, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri.M.Ravi, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

This is a private complaint filed by the complainant for the offence u/s.138 & 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.

2.The complainant and accused both are residents of Tiruvuru with in the limits of this court. The accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/­ (Rupees three lakhs only) from the complainant for his family expenses on 10­01­2012 and executed a promissory note in favour of complainant undertaking to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a on demand either to complainant or his order., subsequently, the accused failed to repay said amount, inspite of several requests made by the complainant at last on 05­08­2012 the accused issued a cheque bearing No.258201 of Andhra bank Tiruvuru branch towards part payment of pronote dated 10­01­2012 for Rs.2,00,000/­ in favour of the complainant. On 07­ 08­2012 the complainant presented the above said cheque in State bank of India 

Tiruvuru Branch for collection. But it was returned with an endorsement that dishonoured as “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”, memo served on complainant 

Dt.08.08.2012.

As the cheque was unpaid the complainant gave a statutory regd., lawyer’s notice to the accused on 14.08.2012 intimating him about the bouncing of the above referred cheque issued by the accused and calling up on him to arrange the cheque amount. Said notice was served on accused and he kept silent without due compliance. Hence the complaint. Therefore, the accused committed an offence u/s 138 of NI Act and prayed to punish the accused according to law.

2

3. This case was taken on file against the accused by my predecessor in office u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. When accused appeared before this Court, copies of documents, on which the prosecution intends to rely upon, were furnished, in terms of Section 207 

Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s.138 of N.I.Act, read over the allegations and explained to him in Telugu. Having understood, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate his case, the complainant him self examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5.

7. After closure of the evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of the complainant, Accused denied the same. And reported for defence evidence.

8. The accused him self examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

9. Heard oral arguments submitted by both the counsel.

10. Now, the point for determination is: ­

Whether the Prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence 

u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11.P O I N T :­ The learned counsel for the complainant has argued before this court that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3 lakhs under Ex.P1 promissory note, on repeated demands he issued Ex.p.2 cheque, after presentation of said cheque it was returned with Ex.P.3 Memo with an endorsement “ FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” in the account of accused. He further argued that he issued Ex.p.4 Legal notice the same is returned un­served i.e. 

Ex.P5. Even though the accused neither paid the cheque amount nor issued the reply notice to the complainant even after receipt of summons in this case.

12.He further argued that when the signature of the accused on Ex.p.1 is not denied, the complainant discharged his liability and it is for the accused to rebut the same by way of his evidence, unless and until disprove versions of the 

3

complainant it can be presumed under section 139 of N.I Act that said debt is legally enforceable debt and prayed to convict the accused.

13. The contention of the accused is that he got acquaintance with the complainant through his friend. The complainant doing finance business. He took 

Rs.50,000/­ from the complainant about 4 years back and repaid the amount in installments along with interest. He gave empty cheques to the complainant at the time of borrowing amount, he asked the complainant to return the cheques, but he stated that he will return it later. The friend of the accused who introduced to the complainant by name Sripathi Hema Ravikumar also borrowed some amount from the complainant and repaid, even though issued notice to S.H.Ravikumar, then the accused went and asked the complainant about notice, on which he stated that as he introduced S.H.Ravikumar to him he is also liable to pay, as the complainant unable to get the amount from S.H.Ravikumar he foisted this false case against the accused. 

The learned counsel has argued that even the complainant known to him, he has no financial transactions with complainant and the accused eking his lively hood with his meager amount of earnings and he has no need to borrow huge amounts as alleged by the complainant and the blank cheque which was available with the complainant used and filed this false case against the accused. He relied on decision of our Hon'ble apex court in between:­ C.Antony … petitioner Vs 

K.G.Raghavan Nair... Respondent.(SC) Appeal(Crl) 1748/1996 Date of Judgment 

1.11.2002. Basing on the above reported decision, the complainant did not establish his case against the accused and prayed to acquit the accused.

14.In order to prove the case under Section 138 of N.I. Act there must be a debt in between the complainant and the accused in existence and the cheque must be issued to clear of the legally enforceable debt, cheque should be presented within three months, it should be dishonoured, notice should be given to the accused within thirty days, complaint should be filed after fifteen days. 

There is a presumption, unless the subsisting debt proved legally the complainant is not entitled to the relief. The initial burden is on the complainant and when the complainant discharges his burden, the burden shifts to the accused, then only the accused disproves the same by adducing rebuttal evidence.

15.The complainant himself examined as P.W.1, got marked Exs,P1 to P5. The accused examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked.

4

16. The P.W.1(Mr.Gurram.Venkateswara Rao) deposed by supporting his contention of complaint that, Ex.P1 is the promissory note and Ex.P2 is the cheque issued to discharge the debt due under Ex.P1. The plea of the complainant is that Ex.P2 was issued towards part satisfaction of existing debt covered under 

Ex.P1 pronote and the same was presented for collection in SBI, Tiruvuru branch, the same was returned with Ex.P3 memo dated 8.8.2012 with an endorsement ''FUNDS INSUFFICIENT''. Basing on that he got issued Ex.P4 legal notice on 14.08.2012 and the same was returned unserved marked as Ex.P5. During cross examination of PW1 the accused tried to establish his plea by way of his cross examination, which is denied by the complainant. During his cross examination of 

PW1, it was revealed that the complainant and accused have acquaintance even prior to his working in Sriram city union finance, he gave amount to the accused 

Rs.3,00,000/­ the rest of the suggestions posed by the learned counsel for accused were denied by PW1.

17.A reading of the complainant and his evidence as a whole would clearly indicate that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/­under a promissory Note Dt.10.01.2012 and to discharge the said debt he issued the cheque in question towards part payment of the amount borrowed under Ex.P1. 

Further, the evidence of P.W.1 Would clearly go to show that to discharge the amount due under Ex.P1, he gave Ex.P2 cheque. On the other hand, the accused also not denied his signature on Ex.p1 promissory note and Ex.P2 cheque, but his contention is that, the complainant doing finance business, he took Rs.50,000/­ from the complainant about 4 years back and repaid the amount on installments along with interest. He gave empty cheques to the complainant at the time of borrowing amount, he asked the complainant to return the cheques but he stated that he will return it later. The friend of the accused who introduced to the complainant by name Sripathi Hema Ravikumar also borrowed some amount from the complainant and repaid, even though issued notice to Sripathi hema 

Ravikumar, then the accused went and asked the complainant about notice, on which he stated that as he introduced Sripathi hema Ravikumar to him he is also liable to pay, as the complainant unable to get the amount from Sripathi hema 

Ravikumar he foisted this false case against the accused, said plea of the accused revealed in the evidence of DW1, specifically the same is not cross examined by the accused to PW1. The accused denied towards clearance of debt covered under 

Ex.P1 as part payment, issued Ex.P2 cheque. it was not denied the signature of accused on Ex.P1 and P2. Therefore, the entire averments in the complaint and the evidence of P.W.1 Would clearly indicate that the cheque was given to 

5

discharge the debt contracted by accused, so the initial burden of the complainant was discharged.

18.The accused (Mr.K.Venkata kesava prasad) examined as D.W1, As per the plea of the accused that, the complainant doing finance business, he borrowed 

Rs.50,000/­ from the complainant about 4 years back and repaid the amount on installment basis along with interest. He gave empty cheques to the complainant at the time of borrowing amount, he asked the complainant to return the cheques but he stated that he will return it later. The friend of the accused whom introduced to the complainant by name Sripathi Hema Ravikumar also borrowed some amount from the complainant and repaid, even though issued notice to 

Sripathi hema Ravikumar, then the accused went and asked the complainant about notice, on which he stated that as he introduced Sripathi hema Ravikumar to him he is also liable to pay, as the complainant unable to get the amount from 

Sripathi hema Ravikumar he foisted this false case against the accused. But, the accused failed to place any documentary proof to say that he paid the amount borrowed from the complainant here in on installments. The accused neither placed his payment receipts nor by his friend Sripathi hema Ravi kumar to establish his contention. In his cross examination DW1 admitted that he issued cheques in respect of amount for which he borrowed from complainant, that he did not file any document or receipts to show that he repaid amount to the complainant. He received legal notice and got issued reply notice. The DW1 denied the borrowing amount from complainant and execution of Ex.P1 promissory note and issuance of Ex.P2 cheque towards part payment of debt due under Ex.P1. He also denied that complainant has no relation with Sripathi hema 

Ravikumar. On admission made by the accused in his cross examination and on scrutiny of Ex.P1 itself speaks that the amount is borrowed by the accused and the signature of accused on Ex.p1 was not denied. In such a circumstance the accused cannot be said to have rebutted the presumption with regard to the existence of subsisting liability.

19.The accused placed reliance on a decision of our Hon'ble apex court in 

between:­ C.Antony … petitioner Vs K.G.Raghavan Nair... Respondent. Appeal(Crl) 

1748/1996 Date of Judgment 1.11.2002. In the above decision of Hon'ble 

Supreme court, the cheque in question was a blank cheque issued to one chandrappa panicker in October, 1985 as security for future installments of amount if due from the appellant in a chit transaction, but said panicker did not return the cheque even after the chit transaction was over and the said cheque 

6

was misused by the respondent in collusion with said panicker.  The trial court observed none­examination chandrappa panicker even though the court noticed him in the court premises at the time of trial; and also trial court observed with regard to the difference in the ink found in the body of the cheque as well as in the signature of appellant. The trial court found that ink used in the body of the cheque was different from the ink used in the signature on the cheque. Therefore, drawn the inference that the case put forth by the respondent was doubtful. The finding of trial court was confirmed by the Hon'ble apex court by reversing the finding of Hon'ble High Court.

In the case in hand it is not the plea of the accused that, ink used in the body of the cheque is different from the ink used in the signature on the cheque and also it was not revealed in the evidence of accused or in the cross examination of PW1 for which transaction of chit number concerned this Ex.P2 cheque was issued by the accused either to complainant or to his friend. In order to establish his plea the accused did not choose to examine his supportive witness. So, with great respect to the above decision relied by the accused, the facts of the above decision and facts in the case in hand are not similar and no such useful material revealed in the cross examination by accused to PW1.

20.During cross examination of D.W.1 it reveals that, he issued cheques to complainant in respect of amount borrowed by him from complainant, admittedly the signatures on Ex.P1 and P2 belongs to the accused. In such a circumstance the accused cannot deny the execution of Ex.P1 promissory note and the Ex.P2 cheque issued towards discharge of his legally enforceable debt. When the accused admitted his signature on pronote and Ex.P2 cheque there is presumption under negotiable instruments act, that it was executed by the accused on the date mentioned in it and received consideration under Ex.P1. 

Once the issuance of cheque is admitted, the burden on the accused to show that it was not issued by him for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability and it shall be presumed unless and until the contrary is proved. In this case the complainant discharged his initial liability the burden of the accused not discharged by way of cogent rebuttal evidence.

21.The above all discussion amply proves that there is legally enforceable debt that exists in between the complainant and accused, in order to discharge the same, the accused got issued Ex.P.2 cheque, on presentation, it was bounced it is obvious under Ex.P.3 cheque return memo and Ex.P4 is o/c of legal notice, the accused did not give any reply or paid the amount or even after his appearance in 

7

this case. The complaint has made out all required ingredients for the offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption u/s.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Under these circumstances, there is no alternative to this court, except to say that the complainant has made out it's case against the accused for the offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments 

Act and the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

22.Hence, the accused is found guilty for the offence u/s.138 of Negotiable 

Instruments Act. 

Typed by me on Lap Top, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2015.

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, Tiruvuru.

23.Complainant present, Accused absent petition filed and allowed for hearing on sentence posted to 15.5.2015. Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, Tiruvuru.

15.5.2015: Both parties present, heard Accused.

23.Accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed. 

He pleaded mercy on the ground that he has got wife and children, he has to maintain them and requested to take lenient view.

24.The offence is u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which is a white collar offence, the accused is not entitled to the benefits of either Probation of 

Offenders Act or u/s.360 of Cr.P.C. The accused deserves punishment.

25.However, in view of the amount involved in this case, the mercy pleaded by the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, this court feel that sentencing the accused to suffer S.I. For 1(one) year and also sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­ in default, S.I. for 3(three) months will meet the ends of 

Justice.

26.In the result, this court found that the accused is guilty for the offence u/s.138 of N.I.Act and accordingly, he is convicted and sentenced to suffer S.I. For 1 (One) year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­(Rupees Five 

Thousand only) in default, Simple Imprisonment for 3(three) months, in terms of 

Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the accused if any, shall stands canceled after expiry of 6 months from the date of judgment as contemplated under section 437­A of Cr.P.C.

8

Typed to my dictation by Typist on Computer, corrected and 

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15th day of May, 2015.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru, Krishna Dist.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:­

P.W.1.Sri.G. Venkateswara rao. D.W.1.Sri.K.Venkata kesava prasad.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT: ­ FOR ACCUSED: ­

Ex.P1. Original pronote Dt.10.01.2012,

Ex.P.2.Cheque bearing No.258201, Dt.05.08.12. Nil.

Ex.P.3. Cheque return Memo Dt. 08.08.2012.

Ex.P.4. O/c of legal notice,Dt.14.08.12.

Ex.P.5. Unserved notice Dt.24.08.2012. Prl.J.C.J, Tirvuru. Copy to :­

1. The Hon'ble 1st Addl.District Judge, Machilipatnam.

2. The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Machilipatnam.

3. Copy to the Accused.

4. one spare copy.

 IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TIRUVURU.

Present: Sri.S.Damodara Rao, M.A.,LL.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge.

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2015.

New. C.C.No. 20 /2015. Old C.C.2 214 /201 2 . 

Between:­

Gurram.Venkateswara rao S/o Narayana, aged 43 years,Hindu, Business, R/o Tiruvuru village & Mandal, Krishna District. ….Complainant.

And

Kambham.Venkata kesava prakash S/o Tirupataiah, Hindu, aged ­­ years, Asstant Manager, Shriram Chits Pvt.Ltd., Tiruvuru Branch,Tiruvuru village and Mandal, Krishna District. …Accused.

This case is coming on 11­5­2015 before this court for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Apparao, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri.M.Ravi, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

This is a private complaint filed by the complainant for the offence u/s.138 & 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.

2.The complainant and accused both are residents of Tiruvuru with in the limits of this court. The accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/­ (Rupees three lakhs only) from the complainant for his family expenses on 10­01­2012 and executed a promissory note in favour of complainant undertaking to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a on demand either to complainant or his order., subsequently, the accused failed to repay said amount, inspite of several requests made by the complainant at last on 05­08­2012 the accused issued a cheque bearing No.258201 of Andhra bank Tiruvuru branch towards part payment of pronote dated 10­01­2012 for Rs.2,00,000/­ in favour of the complainant. On 07­ 08­2012 the complainant presented the above said cheque in State bank of India 

Tiruvuru Branch for collection. But it was returned with an endorsement that dishonoured as “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”, memo served on complainant 

Dt.08.08.2012.

As the cheque was unpaid the complainant gave a statutory regd., lawyer’s notice to the accused on 14.08.2012 intimating him about the bouncing of the above referred cheque issued by the accused and calling up on him to arrange the cheque amount. Said notice was served on accused and he kept silent without due compliance. Hence the complaint. Therefore, the accused committed an offence u/s 138 of NI Act and prayed to punish the accused according to law.

2

3. This case was taken on file against the accused by my predecessor in office u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. When accused appeared before this Court, copies of documents, on which the prosecution intends to rely upon, were furnished, in terms of Section 207 

Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s.138 of N.I.Act, read over the allegations and explained to him in Telugu. Having understood, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate his case, the complainant him self examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5.

7. After closure of the evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of the complainant, Accused denied the same. And reported for defence evidence.

8. The accused him self examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

9. Heard oral arguments submitted by both the counsel.

10. Now, the point for determination is: ­

Whether the Prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence 

u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11.P O I N T :­ The learned counsel for the complainant has argued before this court that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3 lakhs under Ex.P1 promissory note, on repeated demands he issued Ex.p.2 cheque, after presentation of said cheque it was returned with Ex.P.3 Memo with an endorsement “ FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” in the account of accused. He further argued that he issued Ex.p.4 Legal notice the same is returned un­served i.e. 

Ex.P5. Even though the accused neither paid the cheque amount nor issued the reply notice to the complainant even after receipt of summons in this case.

12.He further argued that when the signature of the accused on Ex.p.1 is not denied, the complainant discharged his liability and it is for the accused to rebut the same by way of his evidence, unless and until disprove versions of the 

3

complainant it can be presumed under section 139 of N.I Act that said debt is legally enforceable debt and prayed to convict the accused.

13. The contention of the accused is that he got acquaintance with the complainant through his friend. The complainant doing finance business. He took 

Rs.50,000/­ from the complainant about 4 years back and repaid the amount in installments along with interest. He gave empty cheques to the complainant at the time of borrowing amount, he asked the complainant to return the cheques, but he stated that he will return it later. The friend of the accused who introduced to the complainant by name Sripathi Hema Ravikumar also borrowed some amount from the complainant and repaid, even though issued notice to S.H.Ravikumar, then the accused went and asked the complainant about notice, on which he stated that as he introduced S.H.Ravikumar to him he is also liable to pay, as the complainant unable to get the amount from S.H.Ravikumar he foisted this false case against the accused. 

The learned counsel has argued that even the complainant known to him, he has no financial transactions with complainant and the accused eking his lively hood with his meager amount of earnings and he has no need to borrow huge amounts as alleged by the complainant and the blank cheque which was available with the complainant used and filed this false case against the accused. He relied on decision of our Hon'ble apex court in between:­ C.Antony … petitioner Vs 

K.G.Raghavan Nair... Respondent.(SC) Appeal(Crl) 1748/1996 Date of Judgment 

1.11.2002. Basing on the above reported decision, the complainant did not establish his case against the accused and prayed to acquit the accused.

14.In order to prove the case under Section 138 of N.I. Act there must be a debt in between the complainant and the accused in existence and the cheque must be issued to clear of the legally enforceable debt, cheque should be presented within three months, it should be dishonoured, notice should be given to the accused within thirty days, complaint should be filed after fifteen days. 

There is a presumption, unless the subsisting debt proved legally the complainant is not entitled to the relief. The initial burden is on the complainant and when the complainant discharges his burden, the burden shifts to the accused, then only the accused disproves the same by adducing rebuttal evidence.

15.The complainant himself examined as P.W.1, got marked Exs,P1 to P5. The accused examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked.

4

16. The P.W.1(Mr.Gurram.Venkateswara Rao) deposed by supporting his contention of complaint that, Ex.P1 is the promissory note and Ex.P2 is the cheque issued to discharge the debt due under Ex.P1. The plea of the complainant is that Ex.P2 was issued towards part satisfaction of existing debt covered under 

Ex.P1 pronote and the same was presented for collection in SBI, Tiruvuru branch, the same was returned with Ex.P3 memo dated 8.8.2012 with an endorsement ''FUNDS INSUFFICIENT''. Basing on that he got issued Ex.P4 legal notice on 14.08.2012 and the same was returned unserved marked as Ex.P5. During cross examination of PW1 the accused tried to establish his plea by way of his cross examination, which is denied by the complainant. During his cross examination of 

PW1, it was revealed that the complainant and accused have acquaintance even prior to his working in Sriram city union finance, he gave amount to the accused 

Rs.3,00,000/­ the rest of the suggestions posed by the learned counsel for accused were denied by PW1.

17.A reading of the complainant and his evidence as a whole would clearly indicate that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/­under a promissory Note Dt.10.01.2012 and to discharge the said debt he issued the cheque in question towards part payment of the amount borrowed under Ex.P1. 

Further, the evidence of P.W.1 Would clearly go to show that to discharge the amount due under Ex.P1, he gave Ex.P2 cheque. On the other hand, the accused also not denied his signature on Ex.p1 promissory note and Ex.P2 cheque, but his contention is that, the complainant doing finance business, he took Rs.50,000/­ from the complainant about 4 years back and repaid the amount on installments along with interest. He gave empty cheques to the complainant at the time of borrowing amount, he asked the complainant to return the cheques but he stated that he will return it later. The friend of the accused who introduced to the complainant by name Sripathi Hema Ravikumar also borrowed some amount from the complainant and repaid, even though issued notice to Sripathi hema 

Ravikumar, then the accused went and asked the complainant about notice, on which he stated that as he introduced Sripathi hema Ravikumar to him he is also liable to pay, as the complainant unable to get the amount from Sripathi hema 

Ravikumar he foisted this false case against the accused, said plea of the accused revealed in the evidence of DW1, specifically the same is not cross examined by the accused to PW1. The accused denied towards clearance of debt covered under 

Ex.P1 as part payment, issued Ex.P2 cheque. it was not denied the signature of accused on Ex.P1 and P2. Therefore, the entire averments in the complaint and the evidence of P.W.1 Would clearly indicate that the cheque was given to 

5

discharge the debt contracted by accused, so the initial burden of the complainant was discharged.

18.The accused (Mr.K.Venkata kesava prasad) examined as D.W1, As per the plea of the accused that, the complainant doing finance business, he borrowed 

Rs.50,000/­ from the complainant about 4 years back and repaid the amount on installment basis along with interest. He gave empty cheques to the complainant at the time of borrowing amount, he asked the complainant to return the cheques but he stated that he will return it later. The friend of the accused whom introduced to the complainant by name Sripathi Hema Ravikumar also borrowed some amount from the complainant and repaid, even though issued notice to 

Sripathi hema Ravikumar, then the accused went and asked the complainant about notice, on which he stated that as he introduced Sripathi hema Ravikumar to him he is also liable to pay, as the complainant unable to get the amount from 

Sripathi hema Ravikumar he foisted this false case against the accused. But, the accused failed to place any documentary proof to say that he paid the amount borrowed from the complainant here in on installments. The accused neither placed his payment receipts nor by his friend Sripathi hema Ravi kumar to establish his contention. In his cross examination DW1 admitted that he issued cheques in respect of amount for which he borrowed from complainant, that he did not file any document or receipts to show that he repaid amount to the complainant. He received legal notice and got issued reply notice. The DW1 denied the borrowing amount from complainant and execution of Ex.P1 promissory note and issuance of Ex.P2 cheque towards part payment of debt due under Ex.P1. He also denied that complainant has no relation with Sripathi hema 

Ravikumar. On admission made by the accused in his cross examination and on scrutiny of Ex.P1 itself speaks that the amount is borrowed by the accused and the signature of accused on Ex.p1 was not denied. In such a circumstance the accused cannot be said to have rebutted the presumption with regard to the existence of subsisting liability.

19.The accused placed reliance on a decision of our Hon'ble apex court in 

between:­ C.Antony … petitioner Vs K.G.Raghavan Nair... Respondent. Appeal(Crl) 

1748/1996 Date of Judgment 1.11.2002. In the above decision of Hon'ble 

Supreme court, the cheque in question was a blank cheque issued to one chandrappa panicker in October, 1985 as security for future installments of amount if due from the appellant in a chit transaction, but said panicker did not return the cheque even after the chit transaction was over and the said cheque 

6

was misused by the respondent in collusion with said panicker.  The trial court observed none­examination chandrappa panicker even though the court noticed him in the court premises at the time of trial; and also trial court observed with regard to the difference in the ink found in the body of the cheque as well as in the signature of appellant. The trial court found that ink used in the body of the cheque was different from the ink used in the signature on the cheque. Therefore, drawn the inference that the case put forth by the respondent was doubtful. The finding of trial court was confirmed by the Hon'ble apex court by reversing the finding of Hon'ble High Court.

In the case in hand it is not the plea of the accused that, ink used in the body of the cheque is different from the ink used in the signature on the cheque and also it was not revealed in the evidence of accused or in the cross examination of PW1 for which transaction of chit number concerned this Ex.P2 cheque was issued by the accused either to complainant or to his friend. In order to establish his plea the accused did not choose to examine his supportive witness. So, with great respect to the above decision relied by the accused, the facts of the above decision and facts in the case in hand are not similar and no such useful material revealed in the cross examination by accused to PW1.

20.During cross examination of D.W.1 it reveals that, he issued cheques to complainant in respect of amount borrowed by him from complainant, admittedly the signatures on Ex.P1 and P2 belongs to the accused. In such a circumstance the accused cannot deny the execution of Ex.P1 promissory note and the Ex.P2 cheque issued towards discharge of his legally enforceable debt. When the accused admitted his signature on pronote and Ex.P2 cheque there is presumption under negotiable instruments act, that it was executed by the accused on the date mentioned in it and received consideration under Ex.P1. 

Once the issuance of cheque is admitted, the burden on the accused to show that it was not issued by him for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability and it shall be presumed unless and until the contrary is proved. In this case the complainant discharged his initial liability the burden of the accused not discharged by way of cogent rebuttal evidence.

21.The above all discussion amply proves that there is legally enforceable debt that exists in between the complainant and accused, in order to discharge the same, the accused got issued Ex.P.2 cheque, on presentation, it was bounced it is obvious under Ex.P.3 cheque return memo and Ex.P4 is o/c of legal notice, the accused did not give any reply or paid the amount or even after his appearance in 

7

this case. The complaint has made out all required ingredients for the offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption u/s.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Under these circumstances, there is no alternative to this court, except to say that the complainant has made out it's case against the accused for the offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments 

Act and the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

22.Hence, the accused is found guilty for the offence u/s.138 of Negotiable 

Instruments Act. 

Typed by me on Lap Top, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2015.

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, Tiruvuru.

23.Complainant present, Accused absent petition filed and allowed for hearing on sentence posted to 15.5.2015. Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, Tiruvuru.

15.5.2015: Both parties present, heard Accused.

23.Accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed. 

He pleaded mercy on the ground that he has got wife and children, he has to maintain them and requested to take lenient view.

24.The offence is u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which is a white collar offence, the accused is not entitled to the benefits of either Probation of 

Offenders Act or u/s.360 of Cr.P.C. The accused deserves punishment.

25.However, in view of the amount involved in this case, the mercy pleaded by the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, this court feel that sentencing the accused to suffer S.I. For 1(one) year and also sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­ in default, S.I. for 3(three) months will meet the ends of 

Justice.

26.In the result, this court found that the accused is guilty for the offence u/s.138 of N.I.Act and accordingly, he is convicted and sentenced to suffer S.I. For 1 (One) year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­(Rupees Five 

Thousand only) in default, Simple Imprisonment for 3(three) months, in terms of 

Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the accused if any, shall stands canceled after expiry of 6 months from the date of judgment as contemplated under section 437­A of Cr.P.C.

8

Typed to my dictation by Typist on Computer, corrected and 

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15th day of May, 2015.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru, Krishna Dist.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:­

P.W.1.Sri.G. Venkateswara rao. D.W.1.Sri.K.Venkata kesava prasad.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT: ­ FOR ACCUSED: ­

Ex.P1. Original pronote Dt.10.01.2012,

Ex.P.2.Cheque bearing No.258201, Dt.05.08.12. Nil.

Ex.P.3. Cheque return Memo Dt. 08.08.2012.

Ex.P.4. O/c of legal notice,Dt.14.08.12.

Ex.P.5. Unserved notice Dt.24.08.2012. Prl.J.C.J, Tirvuru. Copy to :­

1. The Hon'ble 1st Addl.District Judge, Machilipatnam.

2. The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Machilipatnam.

3. Copy to the Accused.

4. one spare copy.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NUZVID

Present: Smt. D. Durga Kalyani,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid.

Dated, this the 11th day of April, 2023.

O.S.No.98/2022

Between:

Kasturi Jamaleswara Rao .. Plaintiff

And

Chandu Srinuvasu Rao .. Defendant

This suit is coming on 31.3.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L.Raja Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Y.Hari Babu, Advocate for defendant and upon the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by plaintiff against defendant for recovery of Rs.10,73,200/- being

principal and interest due under promissory note, dt.15.11.2018 executed by defendant in favour of

plaintiff for Rs.6,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% p.a.,.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

It is submitted that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 15-11-2018 for the purpose of family expenses and executed a promissory note on the same date in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% P.A. Later the defendant failed to discharge the said debt and has been postponing the same on one or the other pretext. Subsequently inspite of repeated demands he issued a cheque for Rs.9,45,000/- towards principal and interest there on . On presentation of the said cheque ,it was returned with endorsement “funds insufficient” and there by plaintiff filed the case against the defendant under sec-138 of N.I Act which was numbered in C.C.No.1018/2021 . Further this plaintiff also filed this suit for recovery of amount under the aforesaid promissory note.

3.Per contra written statement is filed by the defendant denying the averments of the plaint as false allegations. He further submits that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff at any point. He further submits that he has no necessity to borrow such huge amount.

It is further submitted that the wife of this defendant by name Chandu Venkata Satyavathi is absolute owner of an extent of 97 sq. yards of vacant site situated in R.S.No.91 of Kodurupadu 2 village. The above said property is part and parcel of an extent of 302 sq. yards of house site belonged to the wife of this defendant in R.s.No 91 of Kodurupadu village .

It is further submitted that this defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 14-11-2018 for his business purpose and agreed to repay the same together with interest @ 60%P.A. In turn the plaintiff demanded this defendant to give security and demanded him to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the property belonged to the wife of this defendant.

It is also submitted that the plaintiff also demanded this defendant to give blank cheque with his signature on the said date. However he did not mention the amount on the said cheque . There by the plaintiff has lent an amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the defendant and obtained blank cheque from him towards security. Further on the next day the plaintiff obtained regd.sale deed dt.15-11-2018 which is related to vacant site of this defendants wife towards security for the amount borrowed by this defendant.

Thus it is submitted that the plaintiff has lent only Rs.2,00,000/- to this defendant and obtained blank cheque and registered sale deed towards security .Further this defendant has been paying interest regularly in every month as agreed.

While so, in the year 2020 this defendant sustained huge loss in the business due to covid- 19 and failed to pay interest on monthly basis .On that an altercation took place between him and the plaintiff and in that course the plaintiff warned him that he would occupy the sale deed property and take legal action.

In pursuance of the same the plaintiff filed a cheque bounce case in C.C.No.1017/2021 on the file of Judicial magistrate court against defendant by filling the blank cheque. He further submits that the plaintiff forged the signature of this defendant on the promissory note and filed this case with false allegations.

It is also submitted that the alleged sale deed which is standing in the name of plaintiff in respect of the property referred above is sham and nominal document and possession of the said property is not handed over to him and it is in possession of the defendant herein. Therefore the said sale deed is void document .

He further submits that the alleged promissory note is a forged and fabricated document having no consideration passed under it. Hence he sought for dismissal of the suit.

3

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed:

1.Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount from the defendant as pleaded?

2. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial,the plaintiff got examined himself as Pw1 and exhibited Ex.A1 and A2. He also examined the attestor Gottapu Vasudevrao as PW2. On the other hand the defendant got himself examined himself as DW1 and exhibited Ex.B1 to B4.

Plaintiff:Defendant:

Ex.A1 : C.C.of pronote,dt.15.11.2018 for Rs.6,00,000/-. Ex.B1 : C.C.of complaint in CC.1017/21 Ex.A2 : Copy of complaint, dt.7.6.2021 in C.C.1017/21 on the file of this Court. on the file of this Court. Ex.B2 : C.C of legal notice, dt.28.4.21 on the file of this Court. Ex.B3 : C.C of plaint in O.S.131/22 on the file of this Court Ex.B4 : C.C. of written statement in

O.S.131/22 on the file of this

Court Issue No.1:-

6.In a suit for promissory note, it is well settled principle that initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of pronote and once the execution is proved, the statutory presumption U/s.118 of N.I. Act comes into operation in favour of plaintiff basing on the consideration as on that date. However, the defendant may dislodge the said statutory presumption by adducing evidence with preponderance of probabilities.

7.Further, in a suit filed for recovery of money on the strength of pronote what becomes necessary is proof thereon. Once execution of pronote is proved, the question as to whether it is supported by consideration or not becomes secondary. The reason is Section 118 of the Act provides such presumption.

8.Adverting to the point herein, it is observed that this is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant for recovery of suit amount basing on the promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant on receipt of consideration there under.

9.To substantiate his version ,the plaintiff as Pw1 affirms on oath that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from this plaintiff on 15-11-2018 for the purpose of his family expenses and executed a demand promissory note under Ex.A1 agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% P.A. In addition he issued a cheque in favour of plaintiff for Rs.9,45,000/- .When the same was presented for encashment it was dishonored for insufficient funds. There by this Pw1 4 issued a legal notice to defendant demanding him to discharge the said debt due under Ex.A1.

Instead the defendant did not discharge the debt due by him. On that this plaintiff filed a complaint under N.I. Act and the same was numbered in this Court as is evident under Ex.A2. Even then the defendant failed to discharge the debt upon which this plaintiff is constrained to file this civil suit for recovery of suit amount.

10.He also deposes that the said promissory note was scribed by one V.Abraham Raju and witnessed by Verisetti Naga Venkata Ranga Rao and Gottapu Vasu Deva Rao. He further denied the contention taken by defendant as incorrect.

11.In corroboration to the evidence of Pw1, Pw2 also corroborated the evidence of Pw1 on all material aspects.

12.In that course he deposes that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-from the plaintiff on 15-11-2018 for the purpose of his family expenses and executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @24%.P.A. He further deposes that he was informed by the defendant that he borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and transferred the same through bank and he got the said amount and further he was told that he has to execute a demand promissory note in the name of plaintiff and as such the defendant executed suit promissory note dt.15-11-2018. He further deposed that the said promissory note was scribed by one V.Abraham Raju where as witnessed by this Pw2 and one Verisetti naga venkata rangarao at the house of plaintiff.

13.Thus it is submitted by the plaintiff that he has discharged his burden of proving execution of suit pronote by the defendant on receipt of consideration thereunder.

14.Now the burden shifts on to the defendant to discredit the version of the plaintiff. In pursuance of the same the defendant as D.W.1 deposes that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff as alleged and he never executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff.

15.In fact he borrowed an amount of only Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 14.11.2018 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 6 % per annum. At that time the plaintiff demanded him to give security and demanded to execute a registered sale deed in respect of property belonged to his wife. In addition he also demanded to issue a blank cheque containing his signature. On that this defendant issued blank cheque to the plaintiff upon which plaintiff has lent an amount of 5

Rs.2,00,000/-. In addition, on the next day the plaintiff obtained registered sale dated 15.11.2018 in respect of the property in an extent of 97 Sq. yards of vacant site situated in R.S.91 of Kodurupadu village which is absolute property of his wife by name Chandu Venkata Satyavathi towards security. However the said property was not delivered to the plaintiff as it was registered only towards security for the amount taken by this defendant.

16.He further deposes that he failed to pay interest in the year 2020 due to pandemic situation of Covid-19 and on that an altercation took place between him and plaintiff where plaintiff warned him that he would occupy the about said property by taking legal action.

17.Accordingly the plaintiff filed a cheque bounce case in C.c.1017/2021 on the file of this

Court by filling the blank cheque and also the suit by forging his signature on suit pronote.

Therefore it is submitted that the alleged sale deed dated 15.11.2018 which is standing in the name of plaintiff is a sham and nominal document having no possession delivered. Thus the sale deed

dated 15.11.2018 standing in the name of plaintiff is null and void. Therefore it is submitted by

this defendant that suit promissory note is forged and fabricated document having no consideration passed under it. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

18.On careful perusal of aforesaid evidence submitted by the both the parties it is apparent that the plaintiff pleads that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from this plaintiff and executed promissory note under Ex.A1. Subsequently he failed to discharge the said debt and moreover he issued a cheque for a Rs.9,45,000/- towards said debt. On presentation of the same for encashment it was dishonored due to insufficient funds. On that plaintiff filed a cheque bounce case against defendant on th file of this court and in addition to that he filed this suit for recovery of pronote debt. Corroborating the version of P.W.1, P.W.2 also deposed in the same lines as that of

P.w.1. Thus it is submitted that plaintiff has proved his version with probable evidence coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

19.Whereas the defendant contends that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed Ex.A1 as alleged. In fact, he borrowed only Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 14.11.2018 and in that course plaintiff obtained sale deed dated 15.11.2018 from the wife of this defendant for 97 Sq. yards of site towards security. He also contends that the plaintiff also obtained 6 empty blank signed cheque from this defendant towards security. Therefore he submits that his wife herself is in possession and enjoyment of the site even as on today.

20.Thus on perusal of defence taken by defendant it is observed that he takes the forgery plea stating that the signature present on Ex.A1 is forged by the plaintiff. Though he contended in the above manner that the said document is forged document coming to his cross examination he poses the question to the plaintiff as to whether he made any part payment or full payment towards the debt due under the promissory note. For that question, the plaintiff admitted that defendant never made any part payment or full payment towards the debt due under suit promissory note. From where it is clear that defendant indirectly admitted about the debt due under suit pronote. Further the defendant contends that P.W.2 admits in his chief examination as told by defendant to him that he borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff which was transferred through bank and thereby he got the same and was instructed by the plaintiff that he has execute demand promissory note in the name of plaintiff and as such he executed suit promissory note dated 15.11.2018.

21.So the defendant states that plaintiff failed to prove his version of lending money to the defendant either by way of cash or by way of bank transfer. On this aspect it is to be noted that whatever the mode is the defendant admitted that he borrowed money from the plaintiff and issued blank cheque and registered sale deed towards security. However denies that the signature present on Ex.A1 is not that of him. When such is the case there is no explanation offered by him as to what prevented him, in not sending Ex.A1 for expert opinion to know the genuinity of the signature present over there. Further he also admitted in his cross-examination he did not file any police complaint against plaintiff for forging his signatures. In this respect it is to be noted that no prudent man remains silent without taking any police action for forging his signature for a such huge amount if really no transaction had taken place. However the defendant admitted in his cross examination that he received Rs.6,00,000/- from the account of plaintiff and withdrawn the same from his account on 15.11.2018 from where it can be clearly inferred that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff as stated by him.

22.Though he contended that the money was not belonged to transaction under Ex.A1 he couldn’t prove the same with cogent evidence. Further he admits that the said plea taken by him was not averred in his pleadings and for the first time he brought the said plea without iota of 7 evidence and also without mentioning the same in his pleadings. Therefore from the above admission it is made clear that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff. Thus in the said circumstances stated above it is clear that plaintiff has proved his version whereas the defendant failed to discredit the version of plaintiff. Further the defendant couldn’t elicit any material contrary to the evidence of plaintiff.

Hence the issue is answered in favour of plaintiff.

Issue No.2:-

23.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against defendant for a sum of Rs.10,73,200/- with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree on principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11th day of April, 2023.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NUZIVID.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

PW1: K.Jamaleswara Rao DW1: Ch.Srinivasa Rao PW2: G.Vasudeva Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : C.C. of pronote, dt.15.11.2018 for Rs.6,00,000/-. Ex.A2 : Copy of complaint, dt.7.6.2021 in C.C.1017/21 on the file of this Court.

DEFENDANT :

Ex.B1 : C.C. of complaint in C.C.1017/21 on the file of this Court. Ex.B2 : C.C of legal notice, dt.28.4.21 on the file of this Court. Ex.B3 : C.C of plaint in O.S.131/22 on the file of this Court. Ex.B4 : C.C. of written statement in O.S.131/22 on the file of this Court.

PJCJ, NZD.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT TIRUVURU.

Present : Sri S.Damodara Rao,M.A.LL.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2015

OS. No. 173/2014

Between:­ Valapanaboina Prakasarao, S/o. Ramaiah @ China Ramaiah, Hindu, Pensioner, Aged 70 years, R/o. Gampalagudem Village and Mandal, Krishna District, Tiruvuru JCJC. …Plaintiff

And

Bhiravarapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Pichaiah, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Attender, Sub Divisional Office, Panchayat Raju, Vijayawada, Vijayawada JCJC.

 ...Defendant

This suit coming on today i.e., 8.5.2015 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri T. Rama Rao, Advocate for the Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.81,090/­, basing on a promissory note dated 28.1.2012 executed by the defendant for a sum of 

Rs.46,000/­ agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are:­

That the defendant for his necessities i.e., for his family expenses purpose, has borrowed an amount Rs.46,000/­ on 28.1.2012 from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same together with interest 24% p.a to the plaintiff or his order, as and when demanded and has executed the suit promissory note on the even date i.e., on 28.2.2012 in favour of the plaintiff, with the above terms and conditions, immediately after receipt of cash consideration of Rs.46,000/­from the plaintiff. 

The plaintiff got issued registered notice on 4.8.2014, demanding the amount under suit pronote, but the defendant kept quite without issuing reply notice nor did he pay the amount. The defendant is liable to discharge the suit promissory note debt together with interest. Hence this suit is filed for recovery of suit promissory note debt with interest and for costs of the suit. 

The suit pronote is executed subsequent to the commencing dates of the 

Act 7/77 , Act.45/87 and act 2/90, the defendant is not entitled to the benefits under the said acts.

3.The defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement by denying the material averments of the plaint. The defendant submits that he borrowed an amount of Rs.46,000/­ from the plaintiff on 28.1.2012 and executed a suit pronote is completely false. The defendant has no acquaintance with the scribe of pronote and also never saw him and defendant never signed in 

English in any transaction and always he used to sign in Telugu only. So the signature on the pronote is not belongs to him and it is a rank forgery. But the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/­ from the plaintiff about four years back and it was barred by time and the defendant suspects that the suit promissory note is concocted with the assistance of scribe of the promissory note for recovery of the time barred by the debt from the defendant. He further submits that he did not lent any amount under the suit promissory note and the entire transaction is absolutely false and far away from the truth. The defendant not received any amount under the suit pronote from the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint.

4.He further contended that, the plaintiff demanded this defendant to repay the alleged promissory note debt and this defendant is evading on one pretext or other are false. This defendant came to know of the suit debt only after the receipt of demand notice only. Later, the defendant approached the plaintiff and he told that you pay the previous debt i.e., Rs.20,000/­, I will not take any action against you. The defendant asked the plaintiff to show the previous promissory note but he refused to show the previous promissory note, if you pay the entire amount, I will give you. Then the defendant came back as he was unable to pay the previous debt. So, this defendant strongly believes that the suit pronote was manipulated, concocted by the plaintiff and scribe for wrongful gain and also to recover the time barred debt. He further submits that, the claim of interest is wrongly calculated and the claim of the suit amount is not proper and valid. So the calculation of interest is to be calculated from 28.1.2012 to 7.9.2014 i.e., 19 months 10 days only. The plaintiff claimed interest excessive and opposed to law, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. 

5.Basing on rival contentions of both parties and after hearing the both parties this Court framed the following issues:

i) Whether the calculation of interest is not correct and excessively claimed by the plaintiff?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim as prayed for?

iii) To what relief ?

6. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he is examined himself as P.W.1 and documents A1 to A3 marked on his behalf and scribe of Ex.A1 was examined as 

PW2 on his behalf. 

7. To substantiate the case of the defendant he examined as DW1 and no documents are filed and marked on his behalf.

8. Witnesses that are examined for the plaintiff;

i)P.W.1 (V. Prakasa Rao), deposed in support of the contents of his plaint and he denied any of the suggestions given by the defendant’s counsel that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/­ and repaid the same and further denied that in connection of his previous transaction there is a due an amount of 

Rs.5,000/­ by the defendant, in that connection, he gave the blank pronote, available in the hands of the plaintiff and filed this suit for higher amount and he further denied after filing this suit the plaintiff and his henchmen threatened the defendant and also denied the interest claimed by the plaintiff is not correct. The 

PW.1 further denied that the Ex.A1 is forged one, prepared with his grand son and defendant never signed on it. In the evidence of PW.1 it was revealed that, the Ex.A1 is prepared at the house of Scribe and defendant having knowledge to fill the promissory note and can sign, but, one Vecha Satyam is scribed the Ex.A1 and he is neighbor of PW.1. The PW.1 evidence itself revealed that there is no previous cash transactions in between defendant and himself except Ex.A1. The source of the amount gained on that day by Plaintiff is explained as he sold away his she buffaloes and gave said amount to the defendant under Ex.A1.

ii)The scribe of Ex.A1 examined as PW2 in his evidence it was revealed that he scribed on Ex.A1 pronote, in his presence the defendant signed on Ex.A1 and received consideration and said transaction took place in his presence. In his cross examination, it was revealed that, he know the defendant, he is doing attender job, he do not his surname. The blank pronote available at his shop and it was further revealed the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.46,000/­ from the plaintiff. He cannot say the denomination, but plaintiff gave higher notes of denomination.

9. Documents that are marked for the plaintiff;

i)Ex. A­1 is the promissory note Dt. 28.1.2012.

ii) Ex. A2 is the office copy of legal notice, dt.4.8.2014 iii) Ex. A3 is the Postal Acknowledgement.

10. The defendant him self examined as DW1, deposed that he received only 

Rs.20,000/­ previously and he repaid said debt and he never signed in English in any transaction, always he signed in Telugu only. He denied the signature on 

Ex.A1, but he did'nt take any steps to establish his contention by way of sending his disputed signature on Ex.A1 along with his admitted signature available custody of any authorized person. In his cross­examination it is admitted that, he has been working in an office at Gampalagudem for the last 24 years and he is residing in the locality where the plaintiff has been residing. He know the plaintiff for the last 20 years and some of the pronote suits and cheque bounce case pending against him within this jurisdiction, in his all cases plea taken by him as he signed in Telugu version but not in English. It is admitted that the 

Ex.A2 legal notice served on him, he neither replied nor approached to the plaintiff. He denied the execution of Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff for consideration of Rs.46,000/­. According to his version, he borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/­ from the plaintiff, in that connection, he signed on blank pronote at request of plaintiff by using the same he filed this suit. The same is denied by the plaintiff, more so, in order to establish his contention, the defendant did not place any documentary proof as he paid the entire amount of his earlier debt of Rs.20,000/­ with interest nor examined any witness, in whose presence he paid said amount and questioned the plaintiff to return his blank pronote.

11. Heard the counsels on either side.

12. Issue No.s 1 to 3: The plaintiff has clearly stated by way of his chief examination affidavit that the defendant borrowed an amount under Ex.A1, the scribe examined as PW2 in his evidence it was revealed that the Ex.A1 transaction was took place in his presence and consideration was passed to the defendant under Ex.A1. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff to the defendant postponing to repay the amount due under the suit promissory note. 

13. The defendant took a plea that he received only Rs.20,000/­ towards the suit pronote. In that connection, the plaintiff insisted the defendant to sign on blank pronote, he paid entire amount with interest towards full satisfaction of the above debt, subsequently, plaintiff filled this suit for higher amounts and filed this suit. The defendant not denied his signature on Ex.A1, In such a case the legal presumption as to the existence of consideration remained UN­rebutted, as such there is no other alternative to this court except believe the execution of 

Ex.A1 promissory note. It is not the plea of defendant that Ex.A1 transaction is prohibited in law. The Defendant tried to rebut the presumption by way of placing his evidence according to his pleas taken in his Written statement, but he failed to place any documentary proof to say that he paid the earlier debt of 

Rs.20,000/­ with interest, the defendant did not place any documentary proof or payment receipts obtained from the plaintiff nor obtained the endorsement and signature of the plaintiff on the back side of Ex.A1 pronote. In such circumstances, it can be safely arrive to the conclusion that, the pleas taken in the written statement was not established. So, in view of the evidence let in by the both parties this court undoubtedly arrived to a conclusion that the Ex.A1 transaction is true valid and binding on defendant as the presumption u/s 118 of negotiable Instruments Act will come in to play in respect of execution of Ex.A1 promissory note.

14. The evidence of PW1 and PW.2 and Ex.A1 to A3 proved execution of Ex.A1. 

The evidence of DW 1 could not be rebut the presumption, hence the pleas taken by the defendant in his written statement are not established and calculation of interest concerned no material placed by the defendant to say it is not correct.

15. So, in view of the present facts and circumstances and in view of the discussion made above, this court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the suit promissory note is executed by defendant is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the payment of the defendant was not established. As such the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly issues 1 to 3 answered.

16. In the result, the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.81,090/­ (Rupees Eighty One Thousand and Ninety Only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a from the date of suit till the date of decree and there after @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of 

Rs.46,000/­ under Ex.A1.

Typed to my dictation by Typist on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 8th day of May, 2015.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TIRUVURU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT 

P.W.1. V. Prakasa Rao. DW1: B. Srinivasa Rao. 

P.W.2. V. Satyanarayana.

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT:­

Ex.A.1.Suit Pronote dated 28.1.2012. Nil.

Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice, dt.4.8.2014.

Ex.A3 is the Postal Acknowledgement.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TIRUVURU

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT TIRUVUR.

Present : Sri S.Damodara Rao,M.A.LL.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2015.

O. S. No.104/2014

Between:­

Mala Koti Reddy, S/o. Erukalareddy, Hindu, Aged 54 years, Business, R/o. Tiruvuru, Tiruvuru Mandal, Krishna District, Tiruvuru JCJC. …Plaintiff

And

Bathula Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o. Errareddy, Hindu, Aged 40 years, Agriculture and Business, R/o. Kanigiri Post and Mandal, Prakasham District. … Defendant.

This suit coming on 6.5.2015 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri Ch. Venkata Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri J. S. Babu Rao (Advocate Kanigiri) and Sri. V. Lakshmi Narayana Advocates for the Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.71,399/­ basing on a promissory note dated 7.5.2010 executed by the defendant for a sum of Rs.50,000/­ agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit .

2.The brief facts of the plaint are:­ That the defendant for his Agriculture expenses has borrowed an amount Rs.50,000/­ on 7.5.2010 from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same together with interest 24% p.a to the plaintiff or his order, as and when demanded and has executed the suit promissory note on the even date i.e., on 7.5.2010. 

But, the Defendant did not discharge the suit promissory note debt on several demands made by the plaintiff. The defendant is liable to discharge the suit promissory note debt together with interest. Hence this suit is filed for recovery of suit promissory note debt with interest and for costs of the suit. The provisions of Act 4/38 is applicable to the defendant. The provisions of Act 45/87, 7/77 and 2/90 are not applicable to the defendant.

3.The defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his Written Statement by denying the material averments of the plaint. He submits that, he approached to the plaintiff on 7.5.2010 and borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff are not true and correct, the plaintiff stating the allegations against the defendant only for filing this suit. The defendant residing at Kinigiri village and he never visit to Tiruvuru on 7.5.2010. the plaintiff brother­in­law usually to visit Kanigiri as a relative and the defendant is the one 1 of the brother­in­law of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is acting a family manager of the defendant joint family. In this connection, the plaintiff requested to the defendant to execute two promissory notes without consideration for show to other family as a deposed amount to conduct real estate business. For this purpose the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff.

4.He further submits that, the part payment endorsement is not executed by this defendant and said endorsement is rank of forgery for the purpose of limitation the plaintiff manipulated the part payment in back side of the promissory note. He further contended that, in the year 2011, the defendant joint family members are ready to partitioned their joint family properties, in that time the plaintiff was acting as a mediator, the defendant not accepted the plaintiff suggestions. Therefore, the plaintiff used the promissory not and filed against the defendant. In fact, the defendant never received any amounts from the plaintiff, hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.After hearing both parties and after gone though the pleadings of the both parties, this court framed the following issues:

i) Whether the part payment endorsement is rank forged one on the back side of the pronote?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim as prayed for?

iii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation as prayed for? iv) To what relief ?

5. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he is examined himself as P.W.1, and got document Ex.A­1 to A4 were marked on his behalf.

6. To substantiate the case of the defendant, he did not adduce his evidence inspite of opportunity given to him and no documents are filed and marked on his behalf.

7. Witnesses that are examined for the plaintiff;

i)P.W.1. M. Koti Reddy, deposed in support of the contents of his plaint and he relied on Ex.A1 to A4. During his Cross Examination, he denied the suggestions posed by the learned defendant counsel of the amount covered under Ex.A1 consideration, that he further denied while they are joint family property in order to focus his financial capacity, he obtained the signatures of defendant on pronotes and subsequently, by using said pronote filed this suit against the defendant. The plaintiff denied that the defendant never paid Ex.A2 part payment and it is created one. The 

PW.1 further denied that, the signature on Ex.A2 is not belongs to the defendant. In his evidence it was revealed that, the plaintiff and defendant are relatives. The plaintiff further denied that, by the time of their partition, the defendant did'nt hear the advise of plaintiff, on that, he filed this suit with a view to harass him.

8. The Defendant did not choose to adduce his evidence either in person or on his behalf inspite of number of opportunities given to him even on costs also. Finally, on 29.4.2015, the Defendant did not turn up, and his evidence is treated as NIL and closed. 

9. Documents that are marked for the plaintiff;

Ex.A1 is the Suit pronote dt. 7.5.2010. Ex.A2 is the part payment of Rs.100/­, dt.6.5.2013. Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice, dt.26.2.2014. Ex.A4 is the reply notice, dt.3.11.2014.

10. Heard the counsels on either side.

11. Issue No.s 1 to 3: The plaintiff has clearly stated by way of his chief examination affidavit that the defendant borrowed an amount under Ex.A1, in his evidence it was revealed that he gave amount of Rs.50,000/­ to the defendant under Ex.A1 and consideration was passed to the defendant under Ex.A1. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff to the defendant postponing to repay the amount due under the suit promissory note. 

12. The evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to A4 proved the execution of Ex.A1. Though, the 

Defendant denied the execution of Ex. A1, and filed his written statement,but he did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove his contentions raised in his written statement. Though, he was given opportunities to represent and adduce the evidence, he did not choose to adduce. Therefore, he could not rebut the averments and contentions raised by the Plaintiff. In such a circumstances, as there is no rebutal from the Defendant, the contention raised by the Plaintiff seems to be correct. The defendant not denied his signature on Ex.A1 pronote. In such a case, the presumption under 

Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act was come in to play in respect of consideration.

13. Therefore, in view of the present facts and circumstances and the discussion made above, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Ex.A1 promissory note is executed by Defendant is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the Defendant, as such the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the 

Defendant. Accordingly point No. 1 to 3 are answered.

14.In the result, the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed with costs for an amount of 

Rs.71,399/­ (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a from the date of suit till the date of decree and there after @ 6% p.a. from the date decree till the date of realization over the principal amount of Rs.50,000/­;

Typed to my dictation by Typist on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 8th day of May, 2015.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendant

PW­1: Sri. M. Koti Reddy. ….Nil.....

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant

Ex.A1 is the Suit pronote dt. 7.5.2010. Ex.A2 is the part payment of Rs.100/­, dt.6.5.2013. Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice, dt.26.2.2014. Ex.A4 is the reply notice, dt.3.11.2014. ….Nil....

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru