Dhanaraju Dammalapati

CC.No.156 of 20231II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

APGU020023432020

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : GUNTUR

PRESENT: D.DHANA RAJU

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GUNTUR.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 28 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE NO.156 of 2023

(Crime No.363 of 2020 of Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban)

BETWEEN: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban. …COMPLAINANT

and

1.Addepalli Subba Rao, S/o.Venkatratnam, 74 years, R/o.R.Agraharam, Near Lakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town. ( Case against A1 is abated on 03.10.2025 as A1 died) 2.Addepalli Murali Krishna, S/o.Subba Rao, 43 years, R/o.R.Agraharam, Near Lakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town.

3.Addepalli Dhanunjeya Rao, S/o.Subba Rao, 36 years, R/o.R.Agraharam, Near Lakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town.

4.Addepalli Khasi Viswanath, S/o.Subba Rao, 33 years, R/o.R.Agraharam,

Near Lakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town. ...ACCUSED

-oo0oo-

This case came up before me for final hearing on 22.04.2026 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri T.Muralidhar and Sri A.V.R.Venu Gopal, Advocates for accused, and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing both sides and this matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

CC.No.156 of 20232II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

//J U D G M E N T//

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.363/2020 on its file for the offence under sections 448, 506, 324 r/w 34 of IPC, as follows.

2.The accused No.1 is the father and accused No.2 to 4 are the younger brother of defacto complainant/LW1/Addepalli Srinivas and he is running kirana shop at D.No.23-11-23B situated in Eluru Bazar, R.Agraharam, Guntur town.

Later the accused Nos.1 to 4 are trying to occupy the said shop. Then the defacto complainant filed civil case vide in O.S.No.377/2020 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur and the Hon’ble court issued

notices to the accused to attend before the court on 15.07.2020. But on 03.07.2020 LW1 went to market to purchase fruits and after returning to his shop, LW1 found the shop keys were broken and articles were kept on the road. Then LW1 went to the shop of his father/A1, while LW1 was asking A1 about the incident. Then A2 to A4 came there, abused LW1 in filthy language and beat LW1 with hands and sticks and caused bleeding injury to his hands and threatened him with dire consequences and stated that “ they occupied the shop and threatened him with dire consequences to tell anybody”. On the same day, at about 11.30 AM, LW went to police station and presented report to police.

Basing on the report given by LW1, LW6-K.Nagendra, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Lalapet Police Station had registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.363/2020 for the offence U/s.448, 380, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW6 examined LW1 to

LW4 and recorded their section 161 Cr.P.C statements, inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. LW5-Medical

CC.No.156 of 20233II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

Officer who treated the injured/LW and issued wound certificate and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. On 25.08.2020 LW6 issued section 41-

A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After completion of investigation, LW6 filed charge sheet against the accused U/s.448, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. On 24.12.2020, the case was taken on file for the offence punishable under sections 448, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC, against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C for which they denied having committed the offence. Charge under sections 448, 506 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC, has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.Initially, the case was numbered as C.C.No.2396/2020 on the file of IV

Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur and subsequently by virtue of the

orders of Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Guntur, vide proceedings in

Dis.No.3553 dated 26.08.2022 the case was transferred to this Court for disposal in accordance with law and, consequently, the case was renumbered as the present case i.e., C.C.No.156/2023.

7.On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P6 were marked. The Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of

LW2/Addepalli Tulasi Radha and LW5/Medical officer. Prosecution side evidence was closed. Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 are got marked through the cross examination of PW1.

CC.No.156 of 20234II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

8.On closure of evidence of prosecution, the accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C puttingforth the incriminating material that appears against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The case of the accused is total denial. The prosecution filed the death certificate of A1, hence, the case against A1 is abated on 03.10.2025.

9.On the other hand, the accused No.2 was examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.R4 to Ex.R6.

10. Heard the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material on record.

11Now the point that arise for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the charge under sections 448, 506 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC, and whether the accused are liable to be punished in accordance with law ?

POINT:

12.For proving the offence U/s.448 of IPC, it has to be shown that “ The accused are trespassed into the shop of PW1/ Addepalli Srinivas with an intention to commit an offence.”

13. So far as the offence of criminal intimidation U/Sec.506 IPC is concerned, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients to make out such offence:

CC.No.156 of 20235II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

(1) that the accused threatened some person.

(2) that such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he is interested.

(3) that he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

14.PW1-Addepalli Srinivas, who is de facto complainant, deposed thatLW2 is his wife. He know LWs.3 and 4. A1 is his father. A2 to A4 are his brothers. He is doing fancy kiran business at Eluru Bazar, Guntur. In the month of March, 2020 he filed a suit on the file of learned Prl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur in OS.No.377/2020 against A1 to A4 seeking permanent injunction restraining all the accused from interfering his business. On the intervening night of 02/03-07-2020, at about mid night 1.00 am(midnight) A1 to A4 broke open the lock of his shop and threw his things out of the shop. On the next day morning at about 10.00 am., he came to know about the same and went to the shop and found that the things were thrown out side the shop and some things were found missing. After that he went to the house of his father (A1) and questioned A1 to A4 about the same, at that time, A1 to A4 beat him with sticks and abused him in filthy language. Due to which, he received swelling injuries his left hand and chest and accused locked the shop and did not allow him to enter the shop. When he questioned about missed things, the accused stated to him that they took away the same. He went to the police station and gave report against all the accused. Ex.P1 is the report of PW1 given to the police.

He did not give any documents to the police and he was examined by the

CC.No.156 of 20236II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

police. He will file the documents in respect of shop before the Court. He obtained treatment at GGH, Guntur for the injuries received in the hands of accused. Ex.P5 is Certified copy of Regd.sale deed vide doc.No.401/1980,

dt:28-01-1980 which stands in the name of my father Adepalli Subba Rao i.e.,

A1 and his grand mother by name Ravamma along translated copy. Ex.P6 is

Photos along with CD and 65-B certificate.

15.In his cross-examination, PW1 stated that himselfand his brothers are residing at R.Agraharam, Guntur in four portioned house separately. His parents are residing along with A4. PW1 admitted that he has filed a Civil suit against his father and brothers in OS.377/2020 on 03.03.2021 on the file of the

Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur. Ex.R1 is the Certified Copy of

Plaint in OS.377/2020 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Guntur. PW1 admitted that in Ex.R1 it is mentioned that he is paying Rs.5,000/- per month to A1 towards his maintenance, but there is no proof to show that he is paying the said amount to A1. PW1 admitted that suit in OS.377/2020 filed for the partition of the house property situated at R.Agraharam, Guntur and shop property with door number 23-11-123B situated at Eluru Bazar, Guntur.

PW1 admitted that the house and shop property are in the name of A1 and his paternal grandmother. PW1 admitted that in that shop his father did business till the year 2011 and later in the ground floor of shop A2 did business and himself did business in Ataka Portion of that shop. At present he is doing business opposite to that shop for the last 8 years. PW1 denied the suggestion that after he shifted to the opposite shop, the Ataka portion of their shop was vacant. The witness adds that he is using the Ataka portion of the shop as Go-down. PW1 denied the suggestion that he is not using the Ataka portion of the shop as Go- down. PW1 admitted that his father gifted the said shop property to A2. Ex.R2 is the Certified Copy of Registered Gift Deed, dated 8.11.2019 executed by A1

CC.No.156 of 20237II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

in favour of A2. PW1 admitted that prior to execution of Ex.R2 there are good terms in between himself and his father and after the execution of said document Ex.R2 disputes arose in between them. PW1 admitted that after execution of Ex.R2 he is not paying the maintenance to his father(A1).On confrontation of signature on Kottu Swadheenapu Raseedu, the witness admitted his signature on it. Ex.R3 is the Signature of PW1 on Shop Delivery

Receipt, dated 18.1.2020. PW1 denied the suggestion that after taking

Rs.50,000/- from A2 after the execution Ex.R2 he did not vacate the said Ataka

Portion of the shop. He do not know that A2 on 13.01.2020 gave a police compliant against him to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur. PW1 denied the suggestion that that he executed Ex.R3 with regard to the handing over the

Ataka portion of the shop to A2 after he gave complaint against him. PW1 denied the suggestion that he filed false suit against the accused herein without mentioning the real facts. PW1 admitted that no injunction order was passed in his favour in that suit. PW1 denied the suggestion that that as he did not obtain any injunction order in the civil suit, he filed this false case against the accused.

PW1 admitted that during the period of filing Ex.P1 Report by him, COVID-19 pandemic was there and lock-down was in force. PW1 denied the suggestion that that in the month of August, 2020 the Government issued Guidelines to open the shops in alternative days i.e., if one shop is open the adjacent shop is to be closed. PW1 admitted that in Ex.P1 Report and in his 161 Cr.P.C.

statement he has not stated the presence of A1 at the time of breaking his shop and there is eye witness to the alleged incident committed by A2 to A4. The witness again says that LW3 and LW4 are the eye witnesses to the said incident. The said incident took place at about 1.00 PM to 1.30 PM in the night time and he observed the scene on the next day i.e., on 4.7.2020. The inventory of the things of his shop was prepared by the police. The said incident was committed by A2 to A4 with the instigation of A1. PW1 denied the

CC.No.156 of 20238II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

suggestion that he did not approach A1 after the alleged incident and A2 to A4 never threaten him by stating that they will beat him. PW1 denied the suggestion that he voluntarily handed over the Ataka portion of the shop to A2 and later due to the disputes in between them, he filed this false case against the accused and the accused did not commit the alleged offence. LW3 and

LW4 are his best friends and they do business. LW3 is doing construction business and LW4 is doing business at Etukuru road, Guntur.

16.PW2-Ravulapalli Yogeswara Rao @ Yogi deposed that he know PW1 and LW2. PW1 is his friend for the last 25 years. He know all the accused they are the brothers and father of PW1. He know LW4. On 03.07.2020 he came to know through his friends that the things of PW1’s shop were thrown on to the road by A2 to A4 by broke open the lock of the shop. After that he went to there and by that time the things were on the road. He came to know that A2 to A4 beat PW1 due to family disputes on the same day and as such PW1 received scratch injury to his left hand. He was not examined by the police.

17.In his cross examination, PW2 stated that he has not directly witnessed the said incident of breaking locks of PW1’s shop and throwing the articles on to the road by the accused. One Sambrala Srinivasa Rao called him over phone and informed the said incident to him. He has not stated before the police that the said Srinivasa Rao informed him over phone about the said incident. PW2 admitted that except his oral evidence there is no documentary proof to show that the things of PW1’s shop were thrown on road. He has not witnessed the accused beating PW1 and he came to know the said incident also through Sambrala Srinivasa Rao and he has not stated before the police that the said Srinivasa Rao informed him over phone about the said incident.

He does not know that A1 executed gift deed in favour of A2 in respect of the

CC.No.156 of 20239II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

disputed shop property. PW2 denied the suggestion that PW1 filed false case against the accused as A1 who is his father gifted the shop property to A2 and the alleged incident has not taken place. PW1 is his friend since 25 years.

PW2 denied the suggestion that he is deposing false to help PW1 who is his friend.

18.PW3-Elleddula Koteswara Rao @ Koti deposed that on 03-07-2020, at about 7.30 am., while himself, PWs1 and 2 were returning from the market after purchasing fruits, by that time they reached near the shop of PW1, they found that all the things of shop of PW1 were thrown on to the road and the shop was locked. On enquiry, the neighbours informed PW1 that the accused broke open the lock of shop of PW1 and had thrown the stock and other things of shop on to the road and put another lock to the shop. Later, PW1 went to his house by stating that he will question the accused about the same. After some time the

PW1 called him over phone and informed him that his brothers i.e., A2 to A4 beat PW1 when PW went to question the accused and as such PW1 went to the police station and gave a police report against all the accused. He was examined by the police.

19.In his cross examination, PW3 stated that he went to Palanadu Bus stand on 03-07-2020 to purchase fruits at about 7.00 am and there he met PW and

PW2. He do not know whom PW1 enquired about the said incident of throwing the stock out of his shop. After visiting the shop of PW1 he returned to his house and except that he do not know the other things happened. At about 10.30 am., PW1 called him over phone and informed him that PW1 was present in Lalapet PS. PW3 admitted that he is not an eye witness to the alleged incident of breaking the lock of PWs1 shop by the accused. PW3 admitted that at the time of alleged incident Covid-19 pandemic was there. PW3

CC.No.156 of 202310II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

denied the suggestion that during that time no shops were opened as per

Government orders. He did not accompany PW1 to the police station. PW3 admitted that there are property disputes between PW1 and accused. PW3 denied the suggestion that PW1 is no way related to the said shop and he is deposing false to help PW1 who is his friend. He know that A1 gifted the disputed property in favour of A2 and A2 is doing business in the said shop.

PW3 admitted that except his oral evidence there is no documentary proof to show that PW1 was doing business in the disputed shop at the time of the alleged incident. PW3 denied the suggestion that the accused have not committed the alleged offence.

20.PW4-K.Nagendra, Sub-Inspector of Police, deposed that on 03.07.2020 at about 11.30 AM while he was present in the police station PW came to police station and lodged report/Ex.P1 and basing on it, he has registered a case in

Cr.No.363/2020, U/s.448, 380, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC and issued Ex.P2/FIR and recorded the statement of PW1 at police station and on the same day, he visited the scene of offence at Eluru Bazar, Lalapet and secured the presence of LW2 to LW4 and recorded their section 161 Cr.P.C statements and he also drawn Ex.P3/ rough sketch and on 25.08.2020 while he was present in the police station A1 to A4 came to police station and surrendered before him and then, he served section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to A1 to A4. On 17.09.2020 he received Ex.P4/ wound certificate of PW1 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

21.In his cross-examination, PW4 admitted that the date on which the report i.e., Ex.P1 was lodged was not mentioned by the complainant. PW1 did not hand over any documents pertaining to O.S.No.377/2020 to him. PW4 admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex.P1 about the time of alleged incident. PW4

CC.No.156 of 202311II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex.P1 about the description of items thrown on the road. He do not know about the agreement entered between PW1 and

A2 pertaining to lease of a shop. He do not know about the representation given by A2 at the Superintendent of Police officer, Guntur regarding the said shop and PW1. He did not seize any sticks at the scene of offence. PW1 did not state before him while recording section 161 Cr.P.C statement that A2 to A4 attacked PW1 in the presence of A1. There is no date mentioned on rough sketch i.e, Ex.P3. PW4 admitted that it was not mentioned in Ex.P3 about the person who prepared it. PW4 admitted that he did not examine any of the neighbours shown in Ex.P3. PW4 admitted that in Ex.P3 he did not mention about the vessels fallen on the road. PW4 admitted that on 03.07.2020 there were strict covid-19 guidelines. PW4 denied the suggestion that as there were strict covid-19 guidelines by the date of alleged incident, there is no scope for the general public to rome on the roads and there is no scope for the alleged incident. PW4 denied the suggestion that PW1 filed false case against A1 to A4 and he has done table investigation and he is deposing false evidence.

22.The accused No.2 was examined as DW1 deposed in his evidence that he is the second accused in this case. PW1 is his elder brother. A1 is his father.

A3 and A4 are also his brothers. PW1 gave report against them with regard to tress-pass into the shop located at Eluru Bazaar, Guntur. Originally the said shop belongs to A1 who is their father. The said shop is having only ground floor and there is a stair-case in the shop and he is maintaining his business in the ground floor. PW1 maintained the business on the stair-case. A1 i.e., his father executed a gift deed(Ex.R2) in his favour for the shop located at Eluru

Bazaar, Guntur. After execution of Ex.R2, he had demanded PW1 to vacate his shop of stair-case for which PW1 demanded for Rs.50,000/- to vacate the shop.

On the demand of PW1, he has given Rs.50,000/- to PW1 and but even after

CC.No.156 of 202312II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

receipt of said amount, PW1 not vacated the shop. He has gave report to police against PW1 before Lalapet police. Ex.R4 is the complaint given by him before police along with its report. On that, Lalapet police called himself and PW1 and after negotiations PW1 vacated the shop and PW1 executed a possession receipt. Ex.R5 is the Possession Notice. Since then he is in possession of the said shop and he has produced GST licence of my business. Ex.R6 is online copy of GST Licence. He has never entered into the possession of shop forcefully. As due to COVID -19 pandemic, no shops were opened as on the date of report of this case.

23.In his cross examination, DW1 stated that he gave report against the

PW1 at Superintendent of Police, Guntur on 13-01-2020 as the PW1 received amount from me of Rs.50,000/- for vacating stair case portion of the shop in the presence of elders by name Sai Krishna, Chakka Ramu, but as per agreement of PW, PW1 not vacated the said portion of the shop. He gave amount to the

PW1 four days prior to 13-01-2020. As the Lalapet police called the PW1 on 18-01-2020 the PW1 executed a possessory receipt in his favour and the PW1 vacated the shop through Lalapet Police, the said Sai Krishna and Chakka

Ramu also present when PW1 executed Possessory agreement at Lalapet

Police. DW1 denied the suggestion that PW1 never vacated the shop and he is deposing false.

24.The case of prosecution is that on 03.07.2020 at about 10.00 AM, all the accused criminally trespassed into the shop of PW1 by break the shop key by criminal force and committed theft of some general articles and some articles were kept on the road and then PW1 went to his shop and asked A1 about the occurrence. On that A2 to A4 came upon him, beat PW with stick and threatened PW1 with dire consequences due to previous grudge, as such, PW1

CC.No.156 of 202313II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

sustained bleeding injuries. The entire incident is alleged to be occurred due to civil disputes between PW1 and accused. In this connection, the prosecution has to establish the alleged date, time and place, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by using a weapon under Sec.324 of IPC.

25.While evaluating the evidence of PW1, according to him, PW1 admitted that he filed a civil suit against his father and brothers vide in O.S.No.377/2020 on 03.03.2021 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur for partition of the house property situated at R.Agraharam, Guntur. PW admitted in his cross examination that the house and shop property are in the name of A1 and his paternal grandmother. PW1 admitted that his father gifted the said shop property to A2 and prior to execution of Ex.R2 there are good terms in between himself and his father and after execution of said Ex.R2 document, the disputes arose between them. PW1 further admitted that after execution of Ex.R2, he is not paying the maintenance to his father/A1. PW1 further admitted that no injunction order was passed in his favour in the suit. PW1 further admitted in his cross examination in Ex.P1 report and in his section 161 Cr.P.C statement he has not stated the presence of A1 at the time of breaking his shop and there is eye witness to the alleged incident committed by A2 to A4. The incident took place at about 1.00 PM to 1.30 PM in the night and he observed the scene on the next day i.e., on 04.07.2020. But the investigating officer did not examine the adjacent owners of the alleged place of offence. According to PW2, PW2 in his cross examination, he stated that he has not directly witnessed the said incident of breaking locks of PW’s shop and throwing the articles on the road by the accused and one Srinivasa Ro called him over phone and informed the said incident to him. According to PW3, in his cross examination he admitted that he is not an eye witness to the alleged incident of breaking the lock of PW1’s shop by the accused. The major discrepancies with regard to the place of occurrence of the alleged incident between PW1 to PW3.

CC.No.156 of 202314II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

26.As seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW3, it is elicited that there is civil disputes between PW1 and the accused. There might be chance to depose the evidence in favour of PW1 in view of rivalry in between accused and PW1.

Though there is no corroboration between the version of PW1 to PW4.

Furthermore, it is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1, PW1 admitted that he filed a civil suit against his father and brothers vide in O.S.No.377/2020 on 03.03.2021 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur for partition of the house property situated at R.Agraharam, Guntur. PW admitted in his cross examination that the house and shop property are in the name of A1 and his paternal grandmother. PW1 admitted that his father gifted the said shop property to A2 and prior to execution of Ex.R2 there are good terms in between himself and his father and after execution of said Ex.R2 document, the disputes arose between them. PW1 further admitted that after execution of Ex.R2, he is not paying the maintenance to his father/A1. PW further admitted that no injunction order was passed in his favour in the suit. PW1 further admitted in his cross examination in Ex.P report and in his section 161 Cr.P.C statement he has not stated the presence of A1 at the time of breaking his shop and there is eye witness to the alleged incident committed by A2 to A4. The incident took place at about 1.00 PM to 1.30 PM in the night and he observed the scene on the next day i.e., on 04.07.2020. But the investigating officer did not examine the adjacent owners of the alleged place of offence. The investigating officer in this case PW4 shown the scene of offence in Ex.P3 is not corroborated with any of the evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses. It is categorically stated by PW4 that there is no weapon was seized in this case.

Section 448 of PC reads as follows:

Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

CC.No.156 of 202315II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

Section 324 of PC reads as follows:

Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

The injured witness/PW1 core contention is the accused beat him with a stick. The alleged weapon is very much essential to substantiate the case of prosecution. It is well settled that mere non-recovery of a weapon not fatal to the case of prosecution perhaps in the present case, PW1 said to have been alleged that the accused beat him with stick on his hands. If any person used the said stick in the commission of offence it would be chance to implicate more injuries which is grievous in nature. To this effect, the LW5 who is the medical officer examined PW1 and issued Ex.P4/wound certificate opined that the injuries are simple in nature. The prosecution failed to produce the evidence of

LW5/Medical officer who examined the injured/PW1 and issued wound certificate/Ex.P4 to support the version of the prosecution witnesses. The

Investigating Officer failed to examine the neighbouring owner of scene of offence shop.

27. As seen from the record, it shows that the testimony of witnesses having discrepancies and omissions which leads to as acquittal the prosecution not able to establish that the accused actions were intentionally and voluntarily and there is happening of alleged act. Hence, this court finds that there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW1 to PW3 regarding the manner of offence, place of offence. The prosecution not able to demonstrate that the alleged injuries caused due to the attack of accused against PW1. Except the

CC.No.156 of 202316II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

evidence of PW1 to PW4, there is no other supporting and reliable witness in the prosecution case. The evidence of prosecution shows major discrepancies in such a case the benefit of doubt is given to the accused.

28.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the charge under sections 448, 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC framed against the accused and he is accordingly entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

29.In the result, the accused/A2 to A4 are found not guilty for the charge under sections 448, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and, accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused/A2 to A4, if any force, shall be in force, for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me, in open Court, on the 28h day of April, 2026.

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju.

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

PW1: Addepalli Srinivas. DW1:Addepalli Murali Krishna. PW2: Ravulapalli Yogeswara Rao. PW3: Elleddula Koteswara Rao PW4: K.Nagendra, Sub-Inspector of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1: Complaint given by PW1. Ex.P2: Fist Information Report.

CC.No.156 of 202317II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

Ex.P3: Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P4: Wound certificate of PW1 by LW5. Ex.P5 : Certified copy of Regd.sale deed vide doc.No.401/1980, dt:28-01- 1980 which stands in the name of my father Adepalli Subba Rao i.e., A1 and my grand mother by name Ravamma along translated copy. Ex.P6 : Photos along with CD and 65-B certificate.

Marked through PW1:

Ex.R1 : Certified Copy of Plaint in OS.377/2020 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur. Ex.R2 : Certified Copy of Registered Gift Deed, dated 8.11.2019 executed by A1 in favour of A2. Ex.R3 : Signature of PW1 on Shop Delivery Receipt, dated 18.1.2020.

FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.R4 : Complaint given by him before police along with its report. Ex.R5 : Possession Notice. Ex.R6 : Online copy of GST Licence.

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju.

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

GUNTUR.

CC.No.156 of 202318II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : GUNTUR

CALENDAR CASE NO.156/2023

1Date of Offence03-07-2020 2Date of Complaint03-07-2020 3Date of Apprehension of AccusedSection 41-A Cr.P.C notice served.

4Date of Commencement of Trial10-01-2023 5Date of Closure of Trial22-04-2026 6Date of Judgment28-04-2026 7ComplainantState: Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban District. (Cr.No.363 of 2020) 8Name of the Accused 1.AddepalliSubbaRao, S/o.Venkatratnam,74years, R/o.R.Agraharam,NearLakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town. ( Case against A1 is abated on 03.10.2025 as A1 died) 2.Addepalli Murali Krishna, S/o.Subba Rao, 43 years, R/o.R.Agraharam, Near Lakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town. 3.Addepalli Dhanunjeya Rao, S/o.Subba Rao, 36 years, R/o.R.Agraharam, Near Lakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town. 4.Addepalli Khasi Viswanath, S/o.Subba Rao, 33 years, R/o.R.Agraharam, Near Lakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town.

9OffenceSections 448, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC 10 Plea of AccusedPleaded Not guilty.

11 FindingAccused found not guilty for the charge.

CC.No.156 of 202319II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

12 ResultIn the result, the accused/A2 to A4 are found not guilty for the charge under sections 448, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and, accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused/A2 to A4, if any force, shall be in force, for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

13 Explanation for delayDue to non-production of witnesses in time

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju.

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to :

The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.

CC.No.156 of 20231II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

APGU020023432020

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : GUNTUR

PRESENT: D.DHANA RAJU

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GUNTUR.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 28 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE NO.156 of 2023

(Crime No.363 of 2020 of Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban)

BETWEEN: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban. …COMPLAINANT

and

1.Addepalli Subba Rao, S/o.Venkatratnam, 74 years, R/o.R.Agraharam, Near Lakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town. ( Case against A1 is abated on 03.10.2025 as A1 died) 2.Addepalli Murali Krishna, S/o.Subba Rao, 43 years, R/o.R.Agraharam, Near Lakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town.

3.Addepalli Dhanunjeya Rao, S/o.Subba Rao, 36 years, R/o.R.Agraharam, Near Lakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town.

4.Addepalli Khasi Viswanath, S/o.Subba Rao, 33 years, R/o.R.Agraharam,

Near Lakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town. ...ACCUSED

-oo0oo-

This case came up before me for final hearing on 22.04.2026 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri T.Muralidhar and Sri A.V.R.Venu Gopal, Advocates for accused, and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing both sides and this matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

CC.No.156 of 20232II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

//J U D G M E N T//

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.363/2020 on its file for the offence under sections 448, 506, 324 r/w 34 of IPC, as follows.

2.The accused No.1 is the father and accused No.2 to 4 are the younger brother of defacto complainant/LW1/Addepalli Srinivas and he is running kirana shop at D.No.23-11-23B situated in Eluru Bazar, R.Agraharam, Guntur town.

Later the accused Nos.1 to 4 are trying to occupy the said shop. Then the defacto complainant filed civil case vide in O.S.No.377/2020 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur and the Hon’ble court issued

notices to the accused to attend before the court on 15.07.2020. But on 03.07.2020 LW1 went to market to purchase fruits and after returning to his shop, LW1 found the shop keys were broken and articles were kept on the road. Then LW1 went to the shop of his father/A1, while LW1 was asking A1 about the incident. Then A2 to A4 came there, abused LW1 in filthy language and beat LW1 with hands and sticks and caused bleeding injury to his hands and threatened him with dire consequences and stated that “ they occupied the shop and threatened him with dire consequences to tell anybody”. On the same day, at about 11.30 AM, LW went to police station and presented report to police.

Basing on the report given by LW1, LW6-K.Nagendra, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Lalapet Police Station had registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.363/2020 for the offence U/s.448, 380, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW6 examined LW1 to

LW4 and recorded their section 161 Cr.P.C statements, inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. LW5-Medical

CC.No.156 of 20233II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

Officer who treated the injured/LW and issued wound certificate and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. On 25.08.2020 LW6 issued section 41-

A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After completion of investigation, LW6 filed charge sheet against the accused U/s.448, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. On 24.12.2020, the case was taken on file for the offence punishable under sections 448, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC, against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C for which they denied having committed the offence. Charge under sections 448, 506 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC, has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.Initially, the case was numbered as C.C.No.2396/2020 on the file of IV

Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur and subsequently by virtue of the

orders of Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Guntur, vide proceedings in

Dis.No.3553 dated 26.08.2022 the case was transferred to this Court for disposal in accordance with law and, consequently, the case was renumbered as the present case i.e., C.C.No.156/2023.

7.On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P6 were marked. The Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of

LW2/Addepalli Tulasi Radha and LW5/Medical officer. Prosecution side evidence was closed. Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 are got marked through the cross examination of PW1.

CC.No.156 of 20234II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

8.On closure of evidence of prosecution, the accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C puttingforth the incriminating material that appears against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The case of the accused is total denial. The prosecution filed the death certificate of A1, hence, the case against A1 is abated on 03.10.2025.

9.On the other hand, the accused No.2 was examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.R4 to Ex.R6.

10. Heard the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material on record.

11Now the point that arise for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the charge under sections 448, 506 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC, and whether the accused are liable to be punished in accordance with law ?

POINT:

12.For proving the offence U/s.448 of IPC, it has to be shown that “ The accused are trespassed into the shop of PW1/ Addepalli Srinivas with an intention to commit an offence.”

13. So far as the offence of criminal intimidation U/Sec.506 IPC is concerned, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients to make out such offence:

CC.No.156 of 20235II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

(1) that the accused threatened some person.

(2) that such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he is interested.

(3) that he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

14.PW1-Addepalli Srinivas, who is de facto complainant, deposed thatLW2 is his wife. He know LWs.3 and 4. A1 is his father. A2 to A4 are his brothers. He is doing fancy kiran business at Eluru Bazar, Guntur. In the month of March, 2020 he filed a suit on the file of learned Prl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur in OS.No.377/2020 against A1 to A4 seeking permanent injunction restraining all the accused from interfering his business. On the intervening night of 02/03-07-2020, at about mid night 1.00 am(midnight) A1 to A4 broke open the lock of his shop and threw his things out of the shop. On the next day morning at about 10.00 am., he came to know about the same and went to the shop and found that the things were thrown out side the shop and some things were found missing. After that he went to the house of his father (A1) and questioned A1 to A4 about the same, at that time, A1 to A4 beat him with sticks and abused him in filthy language. Due to which, he received swelling injuries his left hand and chest and accused locked the shop and did not allow him to enter the shop. When he questioned about missed things, the accused stated to him that they took away the same. He went to the police station and gave report against all the accused. Ex.P1 is the report of PW1 given to the police.

He did not give any documents to the police and he was examined by the

CC.No.156 of 20236II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

police. He will file the documents in respect of shop before the Court. He obtained treatment at GGH, Guntur for the injuries received in the hands of accused. Ex.P5 is Certified copy of Regd.sale deed vide doc.No.401/1980,

dt:28-01-1980 which stands in the name of my father Adepalli Subba Rao i.e.,

A1 and his grand mother by name Ravamma along translated copy. Ex.P6 is

Photos along with CD and 65-B certificate.

15.In his cross-examination, PW1 stated that himselfand his brothers are residing at R.Agraharam, Guntur in four portioned house separately. His parents are residing along with A4. PW1 admitted that he has filed a Civil suit against his father and brothers in OS.377/2020 on 03.03.2021 on the file of the

Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur. Ex.R1 is the Certified Copy of

Plaint in OS.377/2020 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Guntur. PW1 admitted that in Ex.R1 it is mentioned that he is paying Rs.5,000/- per month to A1 towards his maintenance, but there is no proof to show that he is paying the said amount to A1. PW1 admitted that suit in OS.377/2020 filed for the partition of the house property situated at R.Agraharam, Guntur and shop property with door number 23-11-123B situated at Eluru Bazar, Guntur.

PW1 admitted that the house and shop property are in the name of A1 and his paternal grandmother. PW1 admitted that in that shop his father did business till the year 2011 and later in the ground floor of shop A2 did business and himself did business in Ataka Portion of that shop. At present he is doing business opposite to that shop for the last 8 years. PW1 denied the suggestion that after he shifted to the opposite shop, the Ataka portion of their shop was vacant. The witness adds that he is using the Ataka portion of the shop as Go-down. PW1 denied the suggestion that he is not using the Ataka portion of the shop as Go- down. PW1 admitted that his father gifted the said shop property to A2. Ex.R2 is the Certified Copy of Registered Gift Deed, dated 8.11.2019 executed by A1

CC.No.156 of 20237II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

in favour of A2. PW1 admitted that prior to execution of Ex.R2 there are good terms in between himself and his father and after the execution of said document Ex.R2 disputes arose in between them. PW1 admitted that after execution of Ex.R2 he is not paying the maintenance to his father(A1).On confrontation of signature on Kottu Swadheenapu Raseedu, the witness admitted his signature on it. Ex.R3 is the Signature of PW1 on Shop Delivery

Receipt, dated 18.1.2020. PW1 denied the suggestion that after taking

Rs.50,000/- from A2 after the execution Ex.R2 he did not vacate the said Ataka

Portion of the shop. He do not know that A2 on 13.01.2020 gave a police compliant against him to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur. PW1 denied the suggestion that that he executed Ex.R3 with regard to the handing over the

Ataka portion of the shop to A2 after he gave complaint against him. PW1 denied the suggestion that he filed false suit against the accused herein without mentioning the real facts. PW1 admitted that no injunction order was passed in his favour in that suit. PW1 denied the suggestion that that as he did not obtain any injunction order in the civil suit, he filed this false case against the accused.

PW1 admitted that during the period of filing Ex.P1 Report by him, COVID-19 pandemic was there and lock-down was in force. PW1 denied the suggestion that that in the month of August, 2020 the Government issued Guidelines to open the shops in alternative days i.e., if one shop is open the adjacent shop is to be closed. PW1 admitted that in Ex.P1 Report and in his 161 Cr.P.C.

statement he has not stated the presence of A1 at the time of breaking his shop and there is eye witness to the alleged incident committed by A2 to A4. The witness again says that LW3 and LW4 are the eye witnesses to the said incident. The said incident took place at about 1.00 PM to 1.30 PM in the night time and he observed the scene on the next day i.e., on 4.7.2020. The inventory of the things of his shop was prepared by the police. The said incident was committed by A2 to A4 with the instigation of A1. PW1 denied the

CC.No.156 of 20238II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

suggestion that he did not approach A1 after the alleged incident and A2 to A4 never threaten him by stating that they will beat him. PW1 denied the suggestion that he voluntarily handed over the Ataka portion of the shop to A2 and later due to the disputes in between them, he filed this false case against the accused and the accused did not commit the alleged offence. LW3 and

LW4 are his best friends and they do business. LW3 is doing construction business and LW4 is doing business at Etukuru road, Guntur.

16.PW2-Ravulapalli Yogeswara Rao @ Yogi deposed that he know PW1 and LW2. PW1 is his friend for the last 25 years. He know all the accused they are the brothers and father of PW1. He know LW4. On 03.07.2020 he came to know through his friends that the things of PW1’s shop were thrown on to the road by A2 to A4 by broke open the lock of the shop. After that he went to there and by that time the things were on the road. He came to know that A2 to A4 beat PW1 due to family disputes on the same day and as such PW1 received scratch injury to his left hand. He was not examined by the police.

17.In his cross examination, PW2 stated that he has not directly witnessed the said incident of breaking locks of PW1’s shop and throwing the articles on to the road by the accused. One Sambrala Srinivasa Rao called him over phone and informed the said incident to him. He has not stated before the police that the said Srinivasa Rao informed him over phone about the said incident. PW2 admitted that except his oral evidence there is no documentary proof to show that the things of PW1’s shop were thrown on road. He has not witnessed the accused beating PW1 and he came to know the said incident also through Sambrala Srinivasa Rao and he has not stated before the police that the said Srinivasa Rao informed him over phone about the said incident.

He does not know that A1 executed gift deed in favour of A2 in respect of the

CC.No.156 of 20239II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

disputed shop property. PW2 denied the suggestion that PW1 filed false case against the accused as A1 who is his father gifted the shop property to A2 and the alleged incident has not taken place. PW1 is his friend since 25 years.

PW2 denied the suggestion that he is deposing false to help PW1 who is his friend.

18.PW3-Elleddula Koteswara Rao @ Koti deposed that on 03-07-2020, at about 7.30 am., while himself, PWs1 and 2 were returning from the market after purchasing fruits, by that time they reached near the shop of PW1, they found that all the things of shop of PW1 were thrown on to the road and the shop was locked. On enquiry, the neighbours informed PW1 that the accused broke open the lock of shop of PW1 and had thrown the stock and other things of shop on to the road and put another lock to the shop. Later, PW1 went to his house by stating that he will question the accused about the same. After some time the

PW1 called him over phone and informed him that his brothers i.e., A2 to A4 beat PW1 when PW went to question the accused and as such PW1 went to the police station and gave a police report against all the accused. He was examined by the police.

19.In his cross examination, PW3 stated that he went to Palanadu Bus stand on 03-07-2020 to purchase fruits at about 7.00 am and there he met PW and

PW2. He do not know whom PW1 enquired about the said incident of throwing the stock out of his shop. After visiting the shop of PW1 he returned to his house and except that he do not know the other things happened. At about 10.30 am., PW1 called him over phone and informed him that PW1 was present in Lalapet PS. PW3 admitted that he is not an eye witness to the alleged incident of breaking the lock of PWs1 shop by the accused. PW3 admitted that at the time of alleged incident Covid-19 pandemic was there. PW3

CC.No.156 of 202310II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

denied the suggestion that during that time no shops were opened as per

Government orders. He did not accompany PW1 to the police station. PW3 admitted that there are property disputes between PW1 and accused. PW3 denied the suggestion that PW1 is no way related to the said shop and he is deposing false to help PW1 who is his friend. He know that A1 gifted the disputed property in favour of A2 and A2 is doing business in the said shop.

PW3 admitted that except his oral evidence there is no documentary proof to show that PW1 was doing business in the disputed shop at the time of the alleged incident. PW3 denied the suggestion that the accused have not committed the alleged offence.

20.PW4-K.Nagendra, Sub-Inspector of Police, deposed that on 03.07.2020 at about 11.30 AM while he was present in the police station PW came to police station and lodged report/Ex.P1 and basing on it, he has registered a case in

Cr.No.363/2020, U/s.448, 380, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC and issued Ex.P2/FIR and recorded the statement of PW1 at police station and on the same day, he visited the scene of offence at Eluru Bazar, Lalapet and secured the presence of LW2 to LW4 and recorded their section 161 Cr.P.C statements and he also drawn Ex.P3/ rough sketch and on 25.08.2020 while he was present in the police station A1 to A4 came to police station and surrendered before him and then, he served section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to A1 to A4. On 17.09.2020 he received Ex.P4/ wound certificate of PW1 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

21.In his cross-examination, PW4 admitted that the date on which the report i.e., Ex.P1 was lodged was not mentioned by the complainant. PW1 did not hand over any documents pertaining to O.S.No.377/2020 to him. PW4 admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex.P1 about the time of alleged incident. PW4

CC.No.156 of 202311II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex.P1 about the description of items thrown on the road. He do not know about the agreement entered between PW1 and

A2 pertaining to lease of a shop. He do not know about the representation given by A2 at the Superintendent of Police officer, Guntur regarding the said shop and PW1. He did not seize any sticks at the scene of offence. PW1 did not state before him while recording section 161 Cr.P.C statement that A2 to A4 attacked PW1 in the presence of A1. There is no date mentioned on rough sketch i.e, Ex.P3. PW4 admitted that it was not mentioned in Ex.P3 about the person who prepared it. PW4 admitted that he did not examine any of the neighbours shown in Ex.P3. PW4 admitted that in Ex.P3 he did not mention about the vessels fallen on the road. PW4 admitted that on 03.07.2020 there were strict covid-19 guidelines. PW4 denied the suggestion that as there were strict covid-19 guidelines by the date of alleged incident, there is no scope for the general public to rome on the roads and there is no scope for the alleged incident. PW4 denied the suggestion that PW1 filed false case against A1 to A4 and he has done table investigation and he is deposing false evidence.

22.The accused No.2 was examined as DW1 deposed in his evidence that he is the second accused in this case. PW1 is his elder brother. A1 is his father.

A3 and A4 are also his brothers. PW1 gave report against them with regard to tress-pass into the shop located at Eluru Bazaar, Guntur. Originally the said shop belongs to A1 who is their father. The said shop is having only ground floor and there is a stair-case in the shop and he is maintaining his business in the ground floor. PW1 maintained the business on the stair-case. A1 i.e., his father executed a gift deed(Ex.R2) in his favour for the shop located at Eluru

Bazaar, Guntur. After execution of Ex.R2, he had demanded PW1 to vacate his shop of stair-case for which PW1 demanded for Rs.50,000/- to vacate the shop.

On the demand of PW1, he has given Rs.50,000/- to PW1 and but even after

CC.No.156 of 202312II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

receipt of said amount, PW1 not vacated the shop. He has gave report to police against PW1 before Lalapet police. Ex.R4 is the complaint given by him before police along with its report. On that, Lalapet police called himself and PW1 and after negotiations PW1 vacated the shop and PW1 executed a possession receipt. Ex.R5 is the Possession Notice. Since then he is in possession of the said shop and he has produced GST licence of my business. Ex.R6 is online copy of GST Licence. He has never entered into the possession of shop forcefully. As due to COVID -19 pandemic, no shops were opened as on the date of report of this case.

23.In his cross examination, DW1 stated that he gave report against the

PW1 at Superintendent of Police, Guntur on 13-01-2020 as the PW1 received amount from me of Rs.50,000/- for vacating stair case portion of the shop in the presence of elders by name Sai Krishna, Chakka Ramu, but as per agreement of PW, PW1 not vacated the said portion of the shop. He gave amount to the

PW1 four days prior to 13-01-2020. As the Lalapet police called the PW1 on 18-01-2020 the PW1 executed a possessory receipt in his favour and the PW1 vacated the shop through Lalapet Police, the said Sai Krishna and Chakka

Ramu also present when PW1 executed Possessory agreement at Lalapet

Police. DW1 denied the suggestion that PW1 never vacated the shop and he is deposing false.

24.The case of prosecution is that on 03.07.2020 at about 10.00 AM, all the accused criminally trespassed into the shop of PW1 by break the shop key by criminal force and committed theft of some general articles and some articles were kept on the road and then PW1 went to his shop and asked A1 about the occurrence. On that A2 to A4 came upon him, beat PW with stick and threatened PW1 with dire consequences due to previous grudge, as such, PW1

CC.No.156 of 202313II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

sustained bleeding injuries. The entire incident is alleged to be occurred due to civil disputes between PW1 and accused. In this connection, the prosecution has to establish the alleged date, time and place, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by using a weapon under Sec.324 of IPC.

25.While evaluating the evidence of PW1, according to him, PW1 admitted that he filed a civil suit against his father and brothers vide in O.S.No.377/2020 on 03.03.2021 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur for partition of the house property situated at R.Agraharam, Guntur. PW admitted in his cross examination that the house and shop property are in the name of A1 and his paternal grandmother. PW1 admitted that his father gifted the said shop property to A2 and prior to execution of Ex.R2 there are good terms in between himself and his father and after execution of said Ex.R2 document, the disputes arose between them. PW1 further admitted that after execution of Ex.R2, he is not paying the maintenance to his father/A1. PW1 further admitted that no injunction order was passed in his favour in the suit. PW1 further admitted in his cross examination in Ex.P1 report and in his section 161 Cr.P.C statement he has not stated the presence of A1 at the time of breaking his shop and there is eye witness to the alleged incident committed by A2 to A4. The incident took place at about 1.00 PM to 1.30 PM in the night and he observed the scene on the next day i.e., on 04.07.2020. But the investigating officer did not examine the adjacent owners of the alleged place of offence. According to PW2, PW2 in his cross examination, he stated that he has not directly witnessed the said incident of breaking locks of PW’s shop and throwing the articles on the road by the accused and one Srinivasa Ro called him over phone and informed the said incident to him. According to PW3, in his cross examination he admitted that he is not an eye witness to the alleged incident of breaking the lock of PW1’s shop by the accused. The major discrepancies with regard to the place of occurrence of the alleged incident between PW1 to PW3.

CC.No.156 of 202314II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

26.As seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW3, it is elicited that there is civil disputes between PW1 and the accused. There might be chance to depose the evidence in favour of PW1 in view of rivalry in between accused and PW1.

Though there is no corroboration between the version of PW1 to PW4.

Furthermore, it is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1, PW1 admitted that he filed a civil suit against his father and brothers vide in O.S.No.377/2020 on 03.03.2021 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur for partition of the house property situated at R.Agraharam, Guntur. PW admitted in his cross examination that the house and shop property are in the name of A1 and his paternal grandmother. PW1 admitted that his father gifted the said shop property to A2 and prior to execution of Ex.R2 there are good terms in between himself and his father and after execution of said Ex.R2 document, the disputes arose between them. PW1 further admitted that after execution of Ex.R2, he is not paying the maintenance to his father/A1. PW further admitted that no injunction order was passed in his favour in the suit. PW1 further admitted in his cross examination in Ex.P report and in his section 161 Cr.P.C statement he has not stated the presence of A1 at the time of breaking his shop and there is eye witness to the alleged incident committed by A2 to A4. The incident took place at about 1.00 PM to 1.30 PM in the night and he observed the scene on the next day i.e., on 04.07.2020. But the investigating officer did not examine the adjacent owners of the alleged place of offence. The investigating officer in this case PW4 shown the scene of offence in Ex.P3 is not corroborated with any of the evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses. It is categorically stated by PW4 that there is no weapon was seized in this case.

Section 448 of PC reads as follows:

Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

CC.No.156 of 202315II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

Section 324 of PC reads as follows:

Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

The injured witness/PW1 core contention is the accused beat him with a stick. The alleged weapon is very much essential to substantiate the case of prosecution. It is well settled that mere non-recovery of a weapon not fatal to the case of prosecution perhaps in the present case, PW1 said to have been alleged that the accused beat him with stick on his hands. If any person used the said stick in the commission of offence it would be chance to implicate more injuries which is grievous in nature. To this effect, the LW5 who is the medical officer examined PW1 and issued Ex.P4/wound certificate opined that the injuries are simple in nature. The prosecution failed to produce the evidence of

LW5/Medical officer who examined the injured/PW1 and issued wound certificate/Ex.P4 to support the version of the prosecution witnesses. The

Investigating Officer failed to examine the neighbouring owner of scene of offence shop.

27. As seen from the record, it shows that the testimony of witnesses having discrepancies and omissions which leads to as acquittal the prosecution not able to establish that the accused actions were intentionally and voluntarily and there is happening of alleged act. Hence, this court finds that there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW1 to PW3 regarding the manner of offence, place of offence. The prosecution not able to demonstrate that the alleged injuries caused due to the attack of accused against PW1. Except the

CC.No.156 of 202316II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

evidence of PW1 to PW4, there is no other supporting and reliable witness in the prosecution case. The evidence of prosecution shows major discrepancies in such a case the benefit of doubt is given to the accused.

28.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the charge under sections 448, 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC framed against the accused and he is accordingly entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

29.In the result, the accused/A2 to A4 are found not guilty for the charge under sections 448, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and, accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused/A2 to A4, if any force, shall be in force, for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me, in open Court, on the 28h day of April, 2026.

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju.

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

PW1: Addepalli Srinivas. DW1:Addepalli Murali Krishna. PW2: Ravulapalli Yogeswara Rao. PW3: Elleddula Koteswara Rao PW4: K.Nagendra, Sub-Inspector of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1: Complaint given by PW1. Ex.P2: Fist Information Report.

CC.No.156 of 202317II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

Ex.P3: Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P4: Wound certificate of PW1 by LW5. Ex.P5 : Certified copy of Regd.sale deed vide doc.No.401/1980, dt:28-01- 1980 which stands in the name of my father Adepalli Subba Rao i.e., A1 and my grand mother by name Ravamma along translated copy. Ex.P6 : Photos along with CD and 65-B certificate.

Marked through PW1:

Ex.R1 : Certified Copy of Plaint in OS.377/2020 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur. Ex.R2 : Certified Copy of Registered Gift Deed, dated 8.11.2019 executed by A1 in favour of A2. Ex.R3 : Signature of PW1 on Shop Delivery Receipt, dated 18.1.2020.

FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.R4 : Complaint given by him before police along with its report. Ex.R5 : Possession Notice. Ex.R6 : Online copy of GST Licence.

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju.

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

GUNTUR.

CC.No.156 of 202318II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : GUNTUR

CALENDAR CASE NO.156/2023

1Date of Offence03-07-2020 2Date of Complaint03-07-2020 3Date of Apprehension of AccusedSection 41-A Cr.P.C notice served.

4Date of Commencement of Trial10-01-2023 5Date of Closure of Trial22-04-2026 6Date of Judgment28-04-2026 7ComplainantState: Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban District. (Cr.No.363 of 2020) 8Name of the Accused 1.AddepalliSubbaRao, S/o.Venkatratnam,74years, R/o.R.Agraharam,NearLakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town. ( Case against A1 is abated on 03.10.2025 as A1 died) 2.Addepalli Murali Krishna, S/o.Subba Rao, 43 years, R/o.R.Agraharam, Near Lakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town. 3.Addepalli Dhanunjeya Rao, S/o.Subba Rao, 36 years, R/o.R.Agraharam, Near Lakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town. 4.Addepalli Khasi Viswanath, S/o.Subba Rao, 33 years, R/o.R.Agraharam, Near Lakshmi Narasimha swamy temple, Guntur Town.

9OffenceSections 448, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC 10 Plea of AccusedPleaded Not guilty.

11 FindingAccused found not guilty for the charge.

CC.No.156 of 202319II ACJ(JD), GNT, 28.04.2026

12 ResultIn the result, the accused/A2 to A4 are found not guilty for the charge under sections 448, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and, accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused/A2 to A4, if any force, shall be in force, for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

13 Explanation for delayDue to non-production of witnesses in time

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju.

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to :

The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.

1

APGU020056162025

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM – II

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : GUNTUR

Present: Sri D.Dhana Raju, II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur

Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.5427/2022

Between :

Ganapa Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.Bara Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59 years, R/o.Flat No.302, J.S.R.Residency 8th Line, Muthyalareddy Nagar, Guntur. … Complainant.

And

Rachamalla Anji Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 50 years, R/o.Flat No.202, J.S.R.Residency 8th Line, Muthyalareddy Nagar, Guntur. …. Accused.

This case is coming up before me on 24-04-2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Pattabhi Ramudu, Sr R.K.Srinivasa Murthy and Sri G.Gnaneswar, Advocates for the complainant and of Smt/Kum.G.Indira Priyadasrshini, Advocate

for the accused and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till

this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 for having indulged in dishonouring of cheque bearing No.258932, dated 03.10.2022 for

Rs.9,00,000/-.

2

2.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows :-

The accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant on 04.10.2018 for the purpose of his family expenses and on the same day, the accused had executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant in

Guntur, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % per annum either to the complainant or to his order whenever demanded. On repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused had made part payments on the respective dates i.e.,

1) on 20.03.2021 paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- through phonepe, 2) on 19.06.2021 paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- through account transfer, 3) on 27.07.2021 paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- through account transfer, 4) on 31.07.2021 paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- through account transfer and acknowledged the debt and copy of the bank account of complainant is enclosed.

Subsequently for the balance amount and together with interest the accused had issued two cheques i.e., cheque bearing No.171220, dated 03.10.2022 for an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- and cheque bearing No.258932 dated 03.10.2022 for an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- each in favour of the complainant towards part payment of the amount due under the promissory note drawn on State Bank of India, D.No.4- 18-18, Bhadra Reddy Complex, Koretipadu Branch, Guntur in favour of complainant. Out of the above cheques issued by the accused, the complainant presented the cheque bearing No.258932, dated 03.10.2022 for Rs.9,00,000/- in his banker i.e., State Bank of India, Arundelpet Branch, Guntur for collection on 10.10.2022. Surprisingly, the said cheque was returned to the complainant along with memo by his banker was dishonoured due to “ Funds Insufficient” on 10.10.2022. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a statutory notice on 14.10.2022 through his counsel and the said notice was returned on 21.10.2022 as not claimed. The accused neither sent any reply notice nor paid any amount to the complainant till today. The non-payment of the cheque amount is intentional.

Hence, the complaint.

3

3.The learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur has taken on file of the complaint against the accused U/Sec.138 of N.I Act and numbered as

C.C.No.5427/2022 and issued summons to the accused and after appearance of the accused, he was furnished with copies of complaint and documents filed and thereafter the accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C, for the offence U/Sec.138 of N.I Act and the allegations made by the complainant against the accused were read over and explained to him and the accused denied the same and claimed to try the offence. Thereafter C.C.No.5427/2022 transferred to this Court as per the

Orders of the Hon’ble Prl.District Judge, Guntur in Dis.No.3147, dt.17.05.2025.

4.In support of the case of complainant, the complainant himself examined as

PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On the other hand, there is no evidence either oral or documentary adduces on behalf of the accused.

5.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu language to which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Accordingly, the defence side evidence was closed.

6.Heard the arguments of the complainant side. Written arguments submitted by the counsel for accused. Perused the record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

“ Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ?”

4

POINT:-

8.To substantiate the case of complainant, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, but accused did not examined any witness nor produce any documentary evidence in support of his defense.

9. To prove the case, the complainant got examined himself as PW1 and filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the complaint averments. The ocular evidence of PW1 is well supported by exhibiting the documentary evidence under Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On perusal of Ex.P1/Certified copy of promissory note executed by the accused in favour of complainant, dated 04.10.2018 for Rs.15,00,000/-. Inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant, the accused did not chose to repay the same on some pretext or the other. On the persistent demands made by the complainant, the husband of the accused issued a cheque bearing No.No.258932, dated 03.10.2022 drawn on State

Bank of India, Koretipadu Branch, Guntur in favour of the complainant for

Rs.9,00,000/- towards partpayment of the debt due under promissory note. But to his utter surprise when the complainant presented the said cheque on 10.10.2022 for realization in his banker i.e., State Bank of India, Arundelpet Branch, Guntur and the same was returned dishonoured on 10.10.2022 with an endorsement “ Funds

Insufficient”. But the husband of the accused had made it very clear to the complainant that he had issued the cheque only with a view to deceive the complainant and deliberately dishonoured the cheque. Later, the complainant approached the the accused by informing the same about the dishonour of the above said cheque. Ex.P2 ison 20-03-2021 the accused paid an amount of

Rs.20,000/-, on 19-06-2021 the accused paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- through account transfer to him, on 27-07-2021 the accused paid an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- through account transfer to him and on 31-07-2021 the accused paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- through account transfer to him and acknowledged the debt. Statement of Account issued by the SBI, Arundelpet Branch, Guntur 5 disclosing the above part payments from 01-03-2021 to 31-07-2021. Ex.P4 is

Cheque returned memo, dated 10.10.2022. Ex.P5 is Office copy of legal notice,

dated 14.10.2022. Ex.P6 is Returned registered statutory notice, dated 21.10.2022.

As such on perusal of evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.P1, it is crystal clear that the husband of the accused borrowed amount from the PW1 and executed Ex.P1 demand promissory note in favor of the PW1 on 04.10.2018.

10.In his cross examination, PW1 admitted that himself and accused are residing in same apartment as such he has acquaintance with him since 15 years.

The Ex.P1 was executed for Rs.15,00,000/-. PW1 admitted that he had filed another N.I. Act case with CC.No.5425/2022 on the file of this Court and

CC.Nos.1006/2023, CC.No.1007/2023, OS.No.352/2022 on the file of I Addl.Civil

Judge’s Court (Jr.Division), Guntur and another case on the file of III Addl.Civil

Judge’s Courts (Jr.Division), Guntur, the total claim in all the above cases is

Rs.28,00,000/-. The accused issued Ex.P3 cheque to me for Rs.9,00,000/-. There are some part payments made by the accused and the same part payments are shown in the all cases. The total part payments is Rs.9,20,000/-. The accused issued cheque to him for the remaining amount. The accused executed one promissory note in his favour and issued two cheques to him. He has filed a case against the wife of the accused on the file of I Addl.Civil Judge’s Court (Jr.Division),

Guntur vide CC.No.1006/2023. PW1 denied the suggestion that the accused had discharged the entire amount to him. The accused has to pay Rs.28,00,000/- to him which is the principal amount. He is not an income tax assessee. PW1 denied the suggestion that he has no financial capacity to lend huge amount to the accused and he has filed this case by fabricating the promissory note and cheque by him.

PW1 denied the suggestion that himself and his son filing false suits against the accused. PW1 denied the suggestion that he is doing finance business on interest basis. PW1 testified in his cross examination that the accused executed promissory note in favour of complainant on 04.10.2018. PW1 denied the suggestion that there is a difference of ink in the writings of the body of the promissory note. The accused 6 made part payment of the debt covered under the promissory note, but it was not endorsed on the promissory note. The accused issued cheque for Rs.9,00,000/- on 03.10.2022. The part payment was not endorsed by the accused as accused made the said part payment through bank account. PW1 denied the suggestion that the promissory note filed in this case is barred by limitation. PW1 denied the suggestion that the cheque filed in this case is not maintainable. The accused issued the filled cheque to him. He do not know who wrote the columns of the cheque. PW1 denied the suggestion that the cheque is no way connected with the promissory note filed in this case. PW1 denied the suggestion that this case is filed after lapse of limitation. PW1 denied the suggestion that the cheque and promissory note was issued at same time.

11.The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the accused has borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant on 04.10.2018 and evidencing the transaction, the accused executed Ex.P1 demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. He further contended that the accused paid part payments under Ex.P2. He further contended that on repeated demands, the accused issued Ex.P3/ cheque bearing No.258932 dated 03.10.2022 drawn on

State Bank of India, Koretipadu Branch, Guntur in favour of complainant for

Rs.9,00,000/- towards part payment of debt and on presentation of said cheque by the complainant in his banker i.e., State Bank of India, Arundelpet Branch, Guntur for collection and the same dishonoured “ Funds Insufficient” and returned with memo, dated 10.10.2022 under Ex.P4, thereafter, on 14.10.2022 the complainant issued registered statutory legal notice under Ex.P5 to the accused demanding him for payment of cheque amount and the same was returned under Ex.P6 dated 21.10.2022. He further contended that accused having knowledge that he was not having sufficient funds to honour the cheque, issued Ex.P2 cheque and as such the acts of the accused attract the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the complainant got examined himself as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. He further contended 7 that accused did not place any cogent evidence before this court in support of his defence and hence, the accused could not rebut the statutory presumption raised in favour of the complainant under Section 139 N.I Act and hence prayed the court to convict the accused under section 138 N.I Act and that accused is liable to pay compensation to the complainant as per law.

12.Per contra,learned counsel for the accused has contended that accused had no knowledge about the filing of the complaint with their receiving the Ex.P5/legal notice because Ex.P5 not send to correct address and Ex.P5 shows the flat number of accused is wrongly noted. He further submitted that the complainant filed

Ex.P2/bank statement shows part payment made by the accused on different dates and serial numbers of cheques also different dates. He further submitted that there is no legal enforceable debt due under Ex.P is bared by limitation and there is a presumption in favour of the accused. Hence, prayed the court to acquit the accused.

13.Further, it is the consistent evidence of PW1 that on repeated demands made by him, the accused issued Ex.P3/cheque bearing No.258932 dated 03.10.2022 for an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Korietapadu Branch,

Guntur, towards part payment of the debt due under Ex.P1/promissory note and on presenting it, the said cheque was returned with a cheque return memo dt.10.10.2022 under Ex.P4 as “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, PW1 issued registered legal notice under/Ex.P5dated 14.10.2022 to the accused demanding him for payment of cheque amount. It shows that the cheque was returned on 10.10.2022 and legal notice was issued by PW1 on 14.10.2022 which is well within 5 days from the date of dishonour of cheque. The said legal notice was returned on 21.10.2022 and accused kept quiet without paying any amount. The present complaint was filed on 29.11.2022 which is well within one month after expiry of 15 days from the date of service of legal-notice. It shows that PW1 has complied all the legal requirements under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

8

14.On perusal of the rival contentions of both the sides, The main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that accused did not enter into witness box and did not adduce any probable evidence on his behalf. In cases under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, accused need not enter into the witness box and he can rebut the presumption by way of cross examination. Hence, the cross examination of PW1 assumes more importance to the accused to rebut the case of the complainant. Firstly, it is apt to discuss the cross examination of PW1. It is elicited from the cross-examination of PW1, himself and accused are residing in same apartment as such he has got acquittance with the accused since 15 years.

PW1 admitted that he filed another Negotiable Instruments Act case with

C.C.No.5425/2022 on the file of this court and C.C.No.1006/2023,

CC.No.1007/2023 and O.S.No.352/2022 on the file of I Addl.Civil Judge’s Court

(Junior Division), Guntur and another case on the file of III Addl.Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division), Guntur, the total claim in all the above cases is Rs.28,00,000/-.

PW1 admitted that the accused issued Ex.P2 cheque to him for Rs.9,00,000/-. PW1 further admitted that there are some part payments made by the accused and the same part payments are shown in the all cases. The total part payments is

Rs.9,20,000/-. The accused issued cheque to him for the remaining amount. PW1 further admitted that the accused executed one promissory note in his favour and issued two cheques to him. He has filed a case against the wife of accused on the file of I Addl.Civil Judge’s Court(Junior Division), Guntur vide C.C.No.1006/2023.

PW1 further admitted in his cross examination that the accused issued the filled cheque to him and he do not know who wrote the columns of the cheque.

15.Further, the specific contention of the accused is that he did not borrow any amount from the complainant and that there is no legally enforceable debt under

Ex.P1 and it is bared by limitation and there is presumption in favour of the accused. On perusal of the entire cross examination, the learned counsel for the accused has no where disputed the signature of the accused on the cheque. The accused need not pay any amount to PW1, only to get wrongful gain, the 9 complainant filed this false complaint against the accused. Further on perusal of the entire cross examination of PW1, the Learned counsel for accused has not disputed signature on the cheque. Since there is no dispute with signature of the accused in Ex.P3/cheque, it attracts the presumptions under section 118(a) and 139 of NI Act in favor of the complainant. Now it is apposite to extract the relevant provision of law for better determination of the point at hand and the relevant provision is Section 118(a) and Sec.139 of the NI Act, which mandates as follows: -

(i) sec.118 of the NI Act provides : "Presumptions as to negotiable instruments: Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:

(a) of consideration that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;"

(ii) Sec.139 of the N.I Act further provides as follows:

" Presumption in favour of holder it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Sec.138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability".

Thus, the combined effect of Sec.118 (a) and Sec.139 of NI Act raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has received the same for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability.

16.For appreciating such legal position, in this regard the law is well settled by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in betweenKrishna Janardhan Bhatt

Vs. Dattatreya G.Hegde, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1325 wherein, the Hon’ble 10 court observed that “ once the accused has admitted his signature on the cheque, it is bounden duty of trial court to raise a presumption that the cheque involved in the case was issued towards discharge of any debt or other liability. In their subsequent decision in between Rangappa Vs. Sree Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441”

Hon’ble court endorsed the same view and further observed that such presumption

can be drawn to the extent that such debt or liability is legally enforceable one.

17.This court relied a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in between

Kalamani Tex Anr Vs. P. Balasubramanian 2021 SCC Online SC 75wherein held that ; “ Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a plain reading of its judgment that the trial Court completely overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under Sec.118 and Section 139 of NIAct. The Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque / negotiable instrument are established, then these 'reverse onus' clauses become operative. In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him."

18.The learned counsel for the complainant submitted citations :

1) In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (From Andhra

Pradesh (D.B) in between MALLAVARAPU KASIVISWESWARA RAO Vs.

THADIKONDA RAMULU FIRM 2008 AIR (SC) 2898 wherein held that ; “ Negotiable Instrument Act – Section 118(a) – Civil Law –

Recovery Suit – Rule of Evidence – Negotiable Instrument, pronote vis-avis presumption as to consideration – Burden of proof – Initial burden lies on defendant to prove non-existence of consideration, either by direct evidence or by preponderance of 11 probability showing that existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal – In absence of any rebuttal from the defendant, the presumption that the instrument was drawn or issued for consideration can not be washed away, merely because the plaintiff has given evidence inconsistent with such presumption – High Court found to has committed error in concluding to the contrary – Judgment of courts below are modified -Plaintiff/appellant held entitled for the decree in its entirety”.

2) In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in between SUMETI

VIJ Vs., M/S.PARAMOUNT TECH FAB INDUSTRIES 2021 AIR (SC) Cri 825

wherein held that ; “ Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section 138, 139, 118(a)-

Dishonour of cheque – Ingredients – Presumption of legally enforceable debt or liability – Rebuttal – Standard of proof –

Quasi-criminal nature of proceedings – Where cheques are issued in lieu of goods supplied, dishonoured for insufficient funds- and legal notice is served but payment not made, the essential ingredients of Section 138 are met – Section 139 raises a presumption that the cheque was received for discharge of debt or liability – Section 118(a) presumes consideration for a negotiable instrument – Once the complainant proves the issuance of the cheque and it dishonour, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption – Standard of proof for rebuttal is “preponderance of probabilities”,not “beyond reasonable doubt” – Bare denial by the accused is not sufficient to rebut the presumption; the accused must bring probable facts and circumstances on record – Accused’s statement under Section 12 313 Cr.P.C is not substantive defence evidence – High court was justified in reversing trial court’s acquittal where the complainant proved their case with documentary and witness evidence, and the accused failed to lead evidence to rebut the presumption”.

19.From the ratio decidendi laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that for the offence under Sec.138 of the Act, the presumptions under Sec.118 (a) and

Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act have to be compulsory raised as soon as execution of cheque by accused is admitted or proved by the complainant and thereafter, burden is shifted upon the accused to prove otherwise. A presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists.Applying the above said Section to the case on hand, accused has not disputed the issuance of cheque to PW1 and his signature on the cheque in the entire cross examination. Hence, it shall be presumed that unless the contrary is proved, the complainant received Ex.P3/cheque from the accused for partial discharge of the debt due under Ex.P1/promissory note. Hence, the presumptions under Sec.118 (a) and Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act have to be compulsory raised in favor of the complainant. Presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable in nature and it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption by placing probable evidence. If the accused succeeds in rebutting the presumption, complainant is not further entitled to the presumption and it is for her to prove that Ex.P3 was issued by the accused to complainant for partial discharge of the amount due under Ex.P1/promissory note.

The burden of the accused in rebutting the said presumption is not as high as that of the complainant and he need not rebut the presumption by proving beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof on the accused is upto preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the accused has never disputed his signature on the cheque/ Ex.P3 and promissory note / Ex.P1 in issue and only raised defence

PW1 has no financial capacity to lend such huge amount and that PW1 did not filed any civil suit against the accused.

13

20.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the complainant has no financial capacity to lend such a huge amount and that he has not filed any civil suit for recovery of the debt amount. Complainant is at liberty to choose to file civil suit or not, but filing of civil suit does not bar PW1 from taking resort to criminal action against the accused for his criminal liability. In the present case, the signature on the cheque in issue is not disputed by the accused and thus, presumption of a legally enforceable debt is raised in favour of the complainant as discussed earlier.

It is also observed that mere questioning the capacity of complainant to lend amount to the accused will not support the cause of the accused. In the considered opinion of this court, the burden of proof did not shift back on the complainant to prove his financial capacity. As per the law, the accused might have raised probable defence on his behalf but in this case on hand, the accused has put mere suggestion to PW1 that accused not borrowed any amount from him and never executed any promissory note and never issued any cheque on behalf of him.

Hence the said argument of the accused counsel is not reliable.

21.In view of the above discussions, this court is of considered opinion that the present complaint has disclosed the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability vide the cheque-in-issue, return memos and the legal notice brought on record. Moreover, the complainant has successfully proved all the necessary ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. PW1 established the factual basis for raising such presumption through his evidence. Hence, the presumption under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is available for the complainant. Thus, the initial burden, that the accused gave cheque to the complainant for discharging the debt of husband of accused.

22.On the other hand, now, it is the burden of the accused to establish that the

Ex.P3/cheque had not been issued for a debt or legally enforceable liability i.e., not of the nature referred to in Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. But, the material elicited through the cross examination of PW1 is not sufficient to make his 14 contention probable and sufficient to raise the presumption. After considering the entire evidence and material available on the record, it appears that the contentions of the accused is not probable not sufficient and not convincing, as such, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption in favour of complainant either on the basis of the material available on record or by adducing any cogent and reliable evidence as except for bare averments. It is only when the accused has discharged his burden, the burden shifts to the complainant to prove his case. But, the accused failed to rebut the presumption with consistent evidence by raising probable defence. Thus, the accused has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the cheque was not issued for debt under Ex.P1 as contended by him.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

23.In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under

Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and thereby he is convicted under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade -III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:

24.On questioning the accused about the quantum of sentence that has to be imposed against the accused:

25.The accused submitted that he is having wife and children and they are depending on his sole earnings and he is sole bread winner of his family. Hence, he prays the Hon’ble court to take lenient view.

26.On considering the facts of the case, as the main object of Section 138 of the

Act is to avoid the malignant practice of indiscriminate issuance of cheques without sufficient funds, the court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply Provisions of 15

Probation of Offenders Act. However, in view of the submissions of the accused and gravity of the case, the court is inclined to take balanced view in imposing sentence.

27.Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of accused, following sentence is delivered to meet ends of justice.

28.Accordingly, accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One year [1] and also to pay fine of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine

Lakhs only) and the fine amount shall be payable to the complainant under

Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of Three [3] months. If the accused undergone for the imprisonment, during the trial, if any such period shall be reduced from the sentence period under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

29.It is informed to the convict that he has right to prefer appeal against this

Judgment before the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Guntur. Further, the accused also informed about the availability of free legal aid services to prefer an appeal. The office is directed to serve the copy of Judgment to the accused, forthwith.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Complainant:- For Accused:-

PW1 :Ganapa Satyanarayana Reddy. None.

16

Documents marked

For Complainant:- For Accused :- Nil.

Ex.P1 :Certified copy of promissory note executed by the accused in favour of PW1 for Rs.15,00,000/-, dt.04-10-2018. Ex.P2 : On 20-03-2021 the accused paid an amount of Rs.20,000/-, on 19-06- 2021 the accused paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- through account transfer to PW1, on 27-07-2021 the accused paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- through account transfer to PW1 and on 31-07-2021 the accused paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- through account transfer to PW1and acknowledged the debt. Statement of Account issued by the SBI, Arundelpet Branch, Guntur disclosing the above part payments from 01-03-2021 to 31-07-2021. Ex.P3 :Cheque bearing No.258932 issued by the accused for Rs.9,00,000/- in favourr of PW1, dt.03-10-2022. Ex.P4 :Cheque return memo issued by his banker dt.10-10-2022. Ex.P5 :Office copy of the statutory notice issued to the accused along with postal receipt, dt.14-10-2022. Ex.P6 : Returned Regd.statutory notice of accused dt.21-10-2022.

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR 17

APGU020056162025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM – II

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : GUNTUR

CALENDAR CASE NO.5427/2022

1Date of Offence 03-10-2022 2Date of Complaint29-11-2022 3Date of Apprehension of - Accused 4Date of Commencement of Trial 18-07-2024 5Date of Closure of Trial 24-04-2026 6Date of Judgment29-04-2026 7ComplainantGanapa Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.Bara Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59 years, R/o.Flat No.302,J.S.R.Residency8thLine, Muthyalareddy Nagar, Guntur.

8Name of the Accused Rachamalla Anji Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 50 years, R/o.Flat No.202, J.S.R.Residency 8th Line, Muthyalareddy Nagar, Guntur.

9OffenceUnder Section 138 of N.I.Act 10 Plea of AccusedPleaded Not guilty.

11 FindingAccused found guilty.

12Result In the result, the accused is found guilty 18 of the offence punishable under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and thereby he is convicted under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One year [1] and also to pay fine of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) and the fine amount shall be payable to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In default of payment of fine, she shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of Three [3] months. If the accused undergone for the imprisonment, during the trial, if any such period shall be reduced from the sentence period under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. It is informed to the convict that he has right to prefer appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Guntur. Further, the accused also informed about the availability of free legal aid services to prefer an appeal. The office is directed to serve the copy of Judgment to the accused, forthwith.

13Explanation for delay Due to non production of witnesses // Sentence is suspended till 28-05-2026 //

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

Copy submitted to : The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Prl.Civil Judge(Senior Division), Guntur.

1

APGU020036852025

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM – II

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : GUNTUR

Present: Sri D.Dhana Raju, II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur

Friday, this, the 24th day of April, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.4422/2024

Between :

M/s.Godavari Urban Multistate Credit Co-Op Society Limited, rep., by its Incharge Manager Palukuri Subramanya Sai Kumar, Aged about 37 years, Hindu, Located at 12th Line, Next to Presticides Function Hall, Arundelpeta, Guntur.

(Amended as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.1439/2024, dt.23.11.2024) … Complainant.

And

Divvela Raja Ganapathi Rao, S/o.Venkata Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 50 years, R/o.D.No.9-7-14, Nadimpalli Vari Street, Railpeta, Guntur.

Business Address: M/s.Sri Vigna Raja Fabrics, Rep., by its Divvela Raja Ganapathi Rao, Shop No.466, Sri Vasavi Complex, Kakani Road, Guntur. …. Accused.

This case is coming up before me on 17-04-2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri L.Sri Harsha, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri. M.Kedarnadh, Advocate for the accused and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 for having 2 indulged in dishonouring of cheque bearing No.827964, dated 08.07.2024 for

Rs.3,30,213/-.

2.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows :-

The complainant-company is the registered Cooperative Society situated at

Guntur and the accused is resident of Guntur. The accused is doing multiple businesses and have approached the complainant for obtaining loan and the complainant company explained all the details with regard to the loan. Upon the consent of accused, the accused entered into the loan agreement and also executed necessary documentation, promissory note in favour of complainant company and has been maintaining the account with the complainant company from time to time. Inspite of several requests demands made by the complainant, the accused did not choose to repay the debt due and postponing the same on one pretext or other. Ultimately to discharge the liability, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.827964, dated 08.07.2024 drawn on State Bank of India,

Kothapeta Branch, Guntur for Rs.3,30,213/- towards full and final settlement by excluding the expenses of the legal and other charges. Having received the said cheque, the complainant presented the same on 08.07.2024 in his banker The

Karur Vysa Bank Limited, Lakshmipuram Branch, Guntur for collection, but surprisingly, the said cheque was dishonoured due to reason “ FUNDS

INSUFFICIENT” and returned through memo, dated 09.07.2024. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a registered legal notice, dated 01.08.2024 through registered post with acknowledgment due to the accused calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The said notice was returned with different endorsement by the accused and has been intentionally evading to receive the notice. To that effect the accused neither issued a reply notice nor repaid any amounts to the complainant. The non- payment of the cheque amount is intentional. Hence, the complaint.

3

3.The learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur has taken on file of the complaint against the accused U/Sec.138 of N.I Act and numbered as

C.C.No.4422/2024 and issued summons to the accused. After appearance of the accused, the copies of complaint were furnished to the accused and filed documents.

4.Thereafter, as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Principal District Judge,

Guntur, this case i.e., C.C.No.4422/2024 was transferred to this Court vide in

Dis.No.3147, dt.17.05.2025.

5. The accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C, for the offence U/Sec.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, and the allegations made by the complainant against the accused were read over and explained to him and the accused denied the same and claimed to try the offence.

6.Initially Crl.M.P.No.1436/2024, dated 22.11.2024 was filed by Sri Palakuri

Subramanya Sai Kumar after registering the complaint made representative of complainant company. In support of the case of the complainant company, the

Incharge Manager of complainant by name Palukuri Subramnaya Sai Kumar was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the other hand, there is no evidence either oral or documentary adduces on behalf of the accused.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in Telugu language to which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Accordingly, the defence side evidence was closed.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

4

9. Now the point for determination is:

“ Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ?”

POINT:-

10.To substantiate the case of complainant company, the Incharge Manager of complainant by name Palukuri Subramnaya Sai Kumar was examined himself as

PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, but accused did not examined any witness nor produce any documentary evidence in support of his defense.

11. To prove the case, the complainant got examined himself as PW1 and filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the complaint averments. The ocular evidence of PW1 is well supported by exhibiting the documentary evidence under Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Ex.P1 is cheque bearing

No.827964, dated 08.07.2024. Ex.P2 is Cheque returned memo, dated 09.07.2024. Ex.P3 is Original promissory note, dated 17.12.2019. Ex.P4 is

Notarized copy of Authorization, dated 08.01.2024. Ex.P5 is Office copy of legal notice got issued by the complainant to the accused along with postal receipt,

dated 01.08.2024. PW1 stated in his chief examination that he got GPA on

11.11.2024 on that he filed this case and deposing evidence.

In his cross examination, PW1 stated that the complainant firm registered under Societies Act. Being a GPA holder for complainant firm he is representing same. He had filed his GPA before the Court and he had filed before the Court the registration copy of the complainant firm, minutes book and resolution copy. The resolution was passed in favour of him. He had filed notarized copy of resolution

before the Court. The Ex.P4 not contains his name and it was issued in the name

of M.Baji Seetharam. The original of Ex.P4 was in the custody of our Branch 5 office. He admitted that he had not filed any permission to represent before the

Court as a GPA holder. He does not know whether any person examined on behalf of the Bank to contest the case as a GPA holder on behalf of the Bank. PW1 admitted that only round seal of the Bank affixed on the complaint. No for stamp of company was affixed on the complaint. PW1 denied the suggestion that he is not entitled to depose evidence before the Court as no authorization was given to him. The complainant firm sanctioned personal loan to the accused for

Rs.2,00,000/- and Ex.P3 was executed by the accused at the time of sanctioning of the personal loan. The promissory note contains the date 17-12-2019. He had filed the account copy pertaining to the accused loan before the Court. He had not filed any document pertaining to the repayment made by the accused before the

Court. PW1 admitted that Ex.P2 cheque issued by the accused as on the date of sanctioning of the loan and after that they have written the date on the cheque.

PW1 denied the suggestion that there is no legally enforceable debt between complainant firm and accused. They agreed for one time settlement with regard to the accused account and his family members account for Rs.7,50,000/- out of

Rs.9,00,000/-. The accused paid Rs.2,10,000/- as part of the agreed amount out of

Rs.7,50,000/- and they have closed one NI Act case against the family member of accused. PW1 admitted that accused paid Rs.2,10,000/- after expiry of limitation for the debt amount. PW1 admitted that it is not mentioned in complaint as the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque as on the date of sanctioning of the loan. They have issued notice to the accused through Court of law and no notice was sent through advocate prior to filing of the case. PW1 denied the suggestion that he is deposing false to grab amount from the accused. He has not filed the said GPA on 11.11.2024 before the court. PW1 denied the suggestion that he is deposing evidence without having any GPA as such he is not entitled to depose evidence.

PW1 denied the suggestion that as such this case is not maintainable.

12. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the accused had obtained loan from the complainant and entered into loan agreement and also 6 executed necessary documentation, promissory note in favour of complainant and has been maintaining the account with the complainant from time to time. He further contended that on inspite of repeated demands, the accused issued cheque bearing No.827964, dated 08.07.2024 drawn on State Bank of India,

Kothapet Branch, Guntur in faour of complainant for Rs.3,30,213/- towards full and final settlement by excluding the expenses and on presentation of the said cheque in his banker by complainant i.e., The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Lakshmipuram

Branch, Guntur for collection on 08.07.2024 and the same dishonoured “ Funds

Insufficient” and returned with memo, dated 09.07.2024 under Ex.P2, so complainant issued registered legal notice under Ex.P5 to the accused demanding him for payment of cheque amount along with postal receipt, dated 01.08.2024.

He has further contended that the accused having knowledge that he was not having sufficient means to honour the cheque, issued Ex.P1 cheque and as such the acts of the accused attract the offence punishable under section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the complainant has examined himself as PW1 and got exhibited

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and that the accused did not place any cogent evidence before this court in support of his defence, and hence the accused could not rebut the statutory presumption raised in favour of the complainant under Section 139

Negotiable Instruments Act and hence the accused is liable for punishment U/sec.

138 Negotiable Instruments Act and also that accused is liable to pay compensation to him as per law.

13.Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has contended that accused never borrowed any amount from PW and that there is no money transactions between them. Further contended that the complainant need not pay any amount to him and only to get wrongful gain and the complainant filed this false case and accused issued cheque as on the date of sanctioning of the loan and after that the complainant written the date on the cheque i.e., 08.07.2019 not valid and as such 7 the complaint itself is not maintainable and prayed this Court to acquit the accused.

14.Having considered the submissions made on both the sides, the evidence let in on both the sides and material available on record, it seems that it is the specific stand of the complainant that the accused issued cheque bearing

No.827964 for Rs.3,30,213/- dated 08.07.2024 drawn on State Bank of India,

Kothapet Branch, Guntur towards full and final settlement and on presenting it, the said cheque was dishonoured. It is the specific defence of the accused that the complainant got filed this false case against the accused.

15. This court relied upon a decision reported 2003 (2) ALD Criminal 634 (AP)

Shashi Finance Corporation V/s. Super Shine Abrasives Private Limited

wherein it is held that … “Negotiable Instruments Act – Sec.138 (d) – Dishonour

notice sent to an incorrect address and it was returned unversed–

It does not amount to proper service – Complaint is, therefore not

maintainable”.

16.For appreciating such legal position, in this regard the law is well settled by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in betweenKrishna Janardhan Bhatt Vs.

Dattatreya G.Hegde, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1325 wherein, the Hon’ble court observed that “ once the accused has admitted his signature on the cheque, it is bounden duty of trial court to raise a presumption that the cheque involved in the case was issued towards discharge of any debt or other liability. In their subsequent decision in between

Rangappa Vs. Sree Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441” Hon’ble court endorsed the same view and further observed that such presumption can be drawn to the extent that such debt or liability is legally enforceable one.

8

17.This court relied a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in between Kalamani

Tex Anr Vs. P. Balasubramanian 2021 SCC Online SC 75wherein held that ; “ Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a plain reading of its judgment that the trial Court completely overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under

Sec.118 and Section 139 of NIAct. The Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque / negotiable instrument are established, then these 'reverse onus' clauses become operative.

In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him."

18.The learned counsel for the complainant submitted citations :

1) In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in between Sampelly

Satyanarayana Rao Vs., Indian Renewable Energy Development in Criminal Appeal

No.867/2016 wherein held that ; “ We have given due consideration to the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant as well as the observations of this Court in

Indus Airways (supra) with reference to the explanation to Section 138 of the Act and the expression “ for discharge of any debt or other liability” occurring in Section 138 of the Act. We are of the view that the queston whether a post-dated cheque is for “discharge of debt or liability” depends on the nature of the transaction. If on the date of the cheque liability or debt exists or the amount has become legally recoverable, the Section is attracted and not otherwise. Reference to the facts of the present case clearly shows that though the words “security” is used in clause 3.1 (It is was suggested that) of the agreement, the said expression refers to the cheques being towards repayment of the installments. The repayment becomes due under the agreement, the moment the loan is advanced and the installment falls due. It is undisputed that the loan was duly disbursed on 28th

February, 2022 which was prior to the date of the cheques. Once the 9 loan was disbursed and installments have fallen due on the date of the cheque as per agreement, dishonour of such cheques would fall under Section 138 of the Act. The cheques undoubtedly represent the outstanding liability.”

2) In the judgment of the Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate 02 (North) Rohini Court,

Delhi in between I.C.D Vs., BEENA SHABIR AND ANOTHER AIR 2002 SC (6) wherein held that ; “ Issuance of cheque is not disputed by the accused. He has admitted that he issued the cheque in question in blank as security. Section 20

NI Act talks about such instruments. As per this provision, if a person gives duly signed but blank or partly written cheque then he deem to have given implied authority to the holder to fill up the particulars in it and compete it and thus make him liable for the payment mentioned in it. Further it is argued by accused that cheque was given as security. Reliance in such case be placed on ICD vs.Beena Shabir and Anrs. 2002(6) SCC 426 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the security cheques also would fall within the purview of the

Section 138 of the NI Act and a person could not escape his liability”.

19.From the ratio decidendi laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that for the offence under Sec.138 of the Act, the presumptions under Sec.118 (a) and Sec.139 of

NI Act have to be compulsory raised as soon as execution of cheque by accused is admitted or proved by the complainant and thereafter, burden is shifted upon the accused to prove otherwise. A presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists.Applying the above said Section to the case on hand, accused has not disputed the issuance of cheque to PW1 and his signature on the cheque in the entire cross examination. Hence, it shall be presumed that unless the contrary is proved, the complainant received Ex.P1/cheque from the accused for partial discharge of the debt due under the original Ex.P3/ promissory note. Hence, the presumptions under Sec.118 (a) and Sec.139 of N.I.Act have to be compulsory raised in favor of the complainant. Presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable 10

Instruments Act are rebuttable in nature and it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption by placing probable evidence. If the accused succeeds in rebutting the presumption, complainant is not further entitled to the presumption and it is for his to prove that Ex.P1 was issued by the accused to him for partial discharge of the amount due under the original of Ex.P3 promissory note. The burden of the accused in rebutting the said presumption is not as high as that of the complainant and she need not rebut the presumption by proving beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof on the accused is upto preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the accused has never disputed his signature on the cheque/ Ex.P1 and promissory note/Ex.P3 in issue and only raised defence.

20. This court relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported 2025 INSC 1158 in Sanjabij Tari Vs., Kishore S.Borcar And another, wherein it is held that … “Negotiable Instruments Act – Sec.138, 139, 114 – Dishonour of cheque – Presumptions – Scope – Once execution/signature admitted, presumption arises that cheque was for consideration and discharge of legally enforceable debt – Burden initially on accused to rebut by raising probable defence – Mere plea of complainant’s financial incapacity, without documentary or independent evidence, not sufficient- Failure to reply to statutory notice, an adverse inference against accused – Defence that blank cheque given for obtaining bank loan, held unbelievable.

21. This court further relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Padesh at Amaravathi reported 2025 (2) ALD (Crl.) 41 (A) in Thummuru Sita

Ramireddy Vs., Kondamadugula Siva Parvathi and others, wherein it is held that …

11. As seen from the definition of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act, cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a specific banker. The banker as on the date of presentation of the cheque ought to honour the same subject to the standard checks and balances.

12. In the facts of the present case, Vijaya Bank ceased to exist as a banker as on the date when the cheques were presented. The instrument which was drawn on Vijaya Bank looses the identity as a 11 cheque. The movement the amalgamation of banks was recorded and the date notified by the banker to all its customers to surrender the old and collect the cheques of the book into which the earlier bank as amalgamated.

13. As on the date of presentation of the instrument the same was not considered as a Negotiable Instrument and as cheque issued by the Bank of Baroda and as such the cheques were returned with an endorsement referred to drawer, old bank cheque MICR not present, excluded in system. The banker found them true, valid and ineligible for clearance on account of the amalgamation of the Vijaya Bank into Bank of Baroda.

14. As the fundamental instrument on which the complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act is filed has lost its identity as a valid cheque as on the date of its presentation. The criminal proceedings under section 138 of NIAct also cannot lie. Only a Negotiable Instruments can be subject of a complaint under Negotiable instruments Act. This Court finds the case as a fit case for exercise of the inherit powers of this court under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshita Sanhita, 2023.

15. The petitions are allowed in the CC.No.73 of 2024 on the file of I

Additional Chief Metropolitan Court at Vijayawada and CC. No. 353 of

2024 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada are quashed.

22. The above said citation is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. On perusal of the record, from the evidence, it is established that the accused issued

Ex.P1 cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt. The Important aspect under Section 138 (d) of the Act is that notice has to be served on the accused by demanding him to pay the amount due under the act. Unless, it is served on the accused, he has not committed any offence. On perusal of Sec.27 of the general

Clauses Act, 1897, it is clear that to draw presumption of deemed served, it must be proved that the notice has been effected by registered post to be served on the respondent properly. Therefore, by virtue of provisions of Sec.27 of the General

Clauses Act service by post should be deemed to have been effected if the following four conditions are fulfilled i) The cover is sent by registered post, (ii) the 12 cover being properly addressed, (iii) the cover being prepared, and (iv) the cover contains the document sought to be sent to the address.

23.Further, PW1 admitted in his cross examination that he had not filed any permission to represent before the Court as a GPA Holder. PW1 further admitted that Ex.P1 cheque issued by the accused as on the date of sanctioning of the loan and after that the complainant written the date on the cheque. PW1 further admitted that accused paid Rs.2,10,000/- after expiry of limitation for the debt amount. PW1 admitted in his cross examination that the complainant firm sanctioned personal loan to the accused for Rs.2,00,000/- and Ex.P3 was executed by the accused at the time of sanctioning of the personal loan. Further,

PW1 stated in his cross examination that the promissory note contains the date of 17.12.2019 and he has filed the account copy pertaining to the accused loan

before the Court. PW1 further admitted that it is not mentioned in the complaint as

the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque as on the date of sanctioning of the loan. PW1 denied the suggestion that there is no legally enforceable debt between complainant firm and accused. PW1 denied the suggestion that he is deposing evidence without having any GPA as such he is not entitled to depose evidence and as such this case is not maintainable.

24.There is no doubt section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act presumption are available to the complainant. But to available benefit from the above two presumptions the complainant has to establish the legally enforceable debt against the accused and the cheque was issued for discharging such legally enforceable debt or other liability. But in this case, the complainant failed to establish that the accused issued cheque as on the date of sanctioning loan amount in favour of the complainant.

25.It is the duty of the complainant to prove his case with consisting, cogent documentary evidence since initial burden lies on him to prove that the existence 13 of legally enforceable debt the alleged cheque issued towards discharge of such legally enforceable debt. Except PW1, there is no corroborative evidence.

26. Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:

It shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability.

Sec.118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments of consideration. — Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: —

(a) of consideration — that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

Thus a perusal of above provision of law and it’s tenor of language shows that it is mandatory on part of this court to draw the presumption as to the existence of the consideration and the instrument in question being drawn for discharge of the whole or part of an existing liability ( legally enforceable).

But, it is clear from section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that in order to attract the penal provisions in the bouncing of a cheque in Chapter XVII, it is essential that the dishonoured cheque should have been issued in discharge, wholly or in part, or any debt or other liability of the drawer to the payee. The explanation to section 138 defines the expression debt or other liability as a legally enforceable debt or other liability. The explanation to section 138 reads as under :-

Explanation :- For the purpose of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

14

Thus, section 138 is attracted only if the cheque is issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability. In this case, the cheque in question was issued in discharge of arbitration award but at the time of issuance of cheque award was existing or not is the doubtful that might be the reason complainant did not file the award copy along with complainant how far it is proper on the part of complainant by suppressing the material facts filing complaint .

27.These basic facts of the case inspire the invocation of the legal presumption

U/Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant. Thus, the initial burden, that the accused gave cheque to the complainant, is on the complainant. if complainant successfully established the existence of legally enforceable debt issuance of cheque then only onus shifted to the accused, here admittedly accused did not deny the signature on the cheque. Merely accused did not deny his signature it is not proper on the part of the court to come to conclusion that Ex.P1 cheque was issued by the accused towards legally enforceable debt or liability. It is the initial burden of complainant to prove the issuance of cheque on factual basis and technical basis.

28. The circumstances raised by the defence during the cross examination of the

PW1 is enough for damaging the credibility of the complainant case. Here is absolutely justification for discarding from complainant's case. Though the burden of the accused can not equally be compared with that of the complainant, this

Court don't think that the evidence adduced by the complainant is sufficient to rebut the presumption. After considering the evidence on material as a whole, this court is of the opinion that the factual basis for issuing of cheque are not convincingly proved. In the light of above discussion, this court believes that the accused succeeded in discharging the burden of proving that the cheque Ex.P1 was not issued by the accused towards the discharging of debt or liability as contended by the complainant.

15

29.Further, PW1 admitted as the cheque was issued on the date of sanctioning of the loan i.e., on 17.12.2019 when Ex.P3 promissory note was executed by the accused in favour of the complainant firm. But the complainant not filed any loan agreement executed by the accused. But the cheque was presented before the bank on 08.07.2024 by written the date and other contents. But the complainant failed to mention in the complaint as well as in his chief examination as the cheque was issued as on the date of sanctioning of the loan and as the accused issued cheque without mentioning the date. It shows that the complainant materially altered the cheque issued by the accused.

30.On perusal of Ex.P1 it was prepared by the bank in the year 2019.

Moreover, the accused counsel contention the debt of the accused towards the complainant is time bared as the promissory note/Ex.P3 executed on 17.12.2019.

But this complaint filed in the year 2024 after lapse of the limitation of three years.

Hence, time bared debt cannot be enforced against the accused. Moreover, the cheque was not issued in discharging the promissory note cover under Ex.P.3

Moreover, the complainant not demanded the cheque amount through his statutory legal notice as cheque was issued as on the date of the sanctioning of the loan. In his legal notice, he has contended that the accused issued cheque on 08.07.2024. As there is no inconsistency in the version of the complainant about the date of the cheque and validity of the debt.

31. Upon careful perusal of evidence on record, this court came to conclusion that complainant failed to prove his case in factual aspects and technical aspects.

32. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish his case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act.

16

33.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same U/Sec. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties shall be remained in force for six months as required U/sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade -III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Complainant:- For Accused:-

PW1 :Palukuri Subramanya Sai Kumar. Nil.

Documents marked

For Complainant:- For Accused :-

Nil. Ex.P1 : Cheque bearing No.827964, dated 08.07.2024. Ex.P2 : Cheque returned memo, dated 09.07.2024. Ex.P3 : Original promissory note, dated 17.12.2019. Ex.P4 : Notarized copy of Authorization, dated 08.01.2024. Ex.P5 : Office copy of legal notice got issued by the complainant to the accused along with postal receipt, dated 01.08.2024.

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR 17

APGU020036852025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM – II

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : GUNTUR

CALENDAR CASE NO.4422/2024

1Date of Offence 08-07-2024 2Date of Complaint12-09-2024 3Date of Apprehension of Accused - 4Date of Commencement of Trial01-09-2025 5Date of Closure of Trial 17-04-2026 6Date of Judgment24-04-2026 7ComplainantM/s.Godavari Urban Multistate Credit Co-Op Society Limited, rep., by its Incharge Manager Palukuri Subramanya Sai Kumar, Aged about 37 years, Hindu, Located at 12th Line, Next to Presticides Function Hall, Arundelpeta, Guntur.

(Amendedasperordersin

Crl.M.P.No.1439/2024, dt.23.11.2024)

8Name of the Accused Divvela Raja Ganapathi Rao, S/o.Venkata Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 50 years, R/o.D.No.9-7-14, Nadimpalli Vari Street, Railpeta, Guntur.

18

Business Address: M/s.Sri Vigna Raja Fabrics, Rep., by its Divvela Raja Ganapathi Rao, Shop No.466, Sri Vasavi Complex, Kakani Road, Guntur.

9OffenceUnder Section 138 of N.I.Act 10 Plea of AccusedPleaded Not guilty.

11 FindingAccused found not guilty.

12Result In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same U/Sec. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties shall be remained in force for six months as required U/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

13Explanation for delay Due to non production of witnesses

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

Copy submitted to : The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Prl.Civil Judge(Senior Division), Guntur.

1

APGU020036852025

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM – II

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : GUNTUR

Present: Sri D.Dhana Raju, II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur

Friday, this, the 24th day of April, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.4422/2024

Between :

M/s.Godavari Urban Multistate Credit Co-Op Society Limited, rep., by its Incharge Manager Palukuri Subramanya Sai Kumar, Aged about 37 years, Hindu, Located at 12th Line, Next to Presticides Function Hall, Arundelpeta, Guntur.

(Amended as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.1439/2024, dt.23.11.2024) … Complainant.

And

Divvela Raja Ganapathi Rao, S/o.Venkata Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 50 years, R/o.D.No.9-7-14, Nadimpalli Vari Street, Railpeta, Guntur.

Business Address: M/s.Sri Vigna Raja Fabrics, Rep., by its Divvela Raja Ganapathi Rao, Shop No.466, Sri Vasavi Complex, Kakani Road, Guntur. …. Accused.

This case is coming up before me on 17-04-2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri L.Sri Harsha, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri. M.Kedarnadh, Advocate for the accused and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 for having 2 indulged in dishonouring of cheque bearing No.827964, dated 08.07.2024 for

Rs.3,30,213/-.

2.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows :-

The complainant-company is the registered Cooperative Society situated at

Guntur and the accused is resident of Guntur. The accused is doing multiple businesses and have approached the complainant for obtaining loan and the complainant company explained all the details with regard to the loan. Upon the consent of accused, the accused entered into the loan agreement and also executed necessary documentation, promissory note in favour of complainant company and has been maintaining the account with the complainant company from time to time. Inspite of several requests demands made by the complainant, the accused did not choose to repay the debt due and postponing the same on one pretext or other. Ultimately to discharge the liability, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.827964, dated 08.07.2024 drawn on State Bank of India,

Kothapeta Branch, Guntur for Rs.3,30,213/- towards full and final settlement by excluding the expenses of the legal and other charges. Having received the said cheque, the complainant presented the same on 08.07.2024 in his banker The

Karur Vysa Bank Limited, Lakshmipuram Branch, Guntur for collection, but surprisingly, the said cheque was dishonoured due to reason “ FUNDS

INSUFFICIENT” and returned through memo, dated 09.07.2024. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a registered legal notice, dated 01.08.2024 through registered post with acknowledgment due to the accused calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The said notice was returned with different endorsement by the accused and has been intentionally evading to receive the notice. To that effect the accused neither issued a reply notice nor repaid any amounts to the complainant. The non- payment of the cheque amount is intentional. Hence, the complaint.

3

3.The learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur has taken on file of the complaint against the accused U/Sec.138 of N.I Act and numbered as

C.C.No.4422/2024 and issued summons to the accused. After appearance of the accused, the copies of complaint were furnished to the accused and filed documents.

4.Thereafter, as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Principal District Judge,

Guntur, this case i.e., C.C.No.4422/2024 was transferred to this Court vide in

Dis.No.3147, dt.17.05.2025.

5. The accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C, for the offence U/Sec.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, and the allegations made by the complainant against the accused were read over and explained to him and the accused denied the same and claimed to try the offence.

6.Initially Crl.M.P.No.1436/2024, dated 22.11.2024 was filed by Sri Palakuri

Subramanya Sai Kumar after registering the complaint made representative of complainant company. In support of the case of the complainant company, the

Incharge Manager of complainant by name Palukuri Subramnaya Sai Kumar was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the other hand, there is no evidence either oral or documentary adduces on behalf of the accused.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in Telugu language to which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Accordingly, the defence side evidence was closed.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

4

9. Now the point for determination is:

“ Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ?”

POINT:-

10.To substantiate the case of complainant company, the Incharge Manager of complainant by name Palukuri Subramnaya Sai Kumar was examined himself as

PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, but accused did not examined any witness nor produce any documentary evidence in support of his defense.

11. To prove the case, the complainant got examined himself as PW1 and filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the complaint averments. The ocular evidence of PW1 is well supported by exhibiting the documentary evidence under Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Ex.P1 is cheque bearing

No.827964, dated 08.07.2024. Ex.P2 is Cheque returned memo, dated 09.07.2024. Ex.P3 is Original promissory note, dated 17.12.2019. Ex.P4 is

Notarized copy of Authorization, dated 08.01.2024. Ex.P5 is Office copy of legal notice got issued by the complainant to the accused along with postal receipt,

dated 01.08.2024. PW1 stated in his chief examination that he got GPA on

11.11.2024 on that he filed this case and deposing evidence.

In his cross examination, PW1 stated that the complainant firm registered under Societies Act. Being a GPA holder for complainant firm he is representing same. He had filed his GPA before the Court and he had filed before the Court the registration copy of the complainant firm, minutes book and resolution copy. The resolution was passed in favour of him. He had filed notarized copy of resolution

before the Court. The Ex.P4 not contains his name and it was issued in the name

of M.Baji Seetharam. The original of Ex.P4 was in the custody of our Branch 5 office. He admitted that he had not filed any permission to represent before the

Court as a GPA holder. He does not know whether any person examined on behalf of the Bank to contest the case as a GPA holder on behalf of the Bank. PW1 admitted that only round seal of the Bank affixed on the complaint. No for stamp of company was affixed on the complaint. PW1 denied the suggestion that he is not entitled to depose evidence before the Court as no authorization was given to him. The complainant firm sanctioned personal loan to the accused for

Rs.2,00,000/- and Ex.P3 was executed by the accused at the time of sanctioning of the personal loan. The promissory note contains the date 17-12-2019. He had filed the account copy pertaining to the accused loan before the Court. He had not filed any document pertaining to the repayment made by the accused before the

Court. PW1 admitted that Ex.P2 cheque issued by the accused as on the date of sanctioning of the loan and after that they have written the date on the cheque.

PW1 denied the suggestion that there is no legally enforceable debt between complainant firm and accused. They agreed for one time settlement with regard to the accused account and his family members account for Rs.7,50,000/- out of

Rs.9,00,000/-. The accused paid Rs.2,10,000/- as part of the agreed amount out of

Rs.7,50,000/- and they have closed one NI Act case against the family member of accused. PW1 admitted that accused paid Rs.2,10,000/- after expiry of limitation for the debt amount. PW1 admitted that it is not mentioned in complaint as the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque as on the date of sanctioning of the loan. They have issued notice to the accused through Court of law and no notice was sent through advocate prior to filing of the case. PW1 denied the suggestion that he is deposing false to grab amount from the accused. He has not filed the said GPA on 11.11.2024 before the court. PW1 denied the suggestion that he is deposing evidence without having any GPA as such he is not entitled to depose evidence.

PW1 denied the suggestion that as such this case is not maintainable.

12. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the accused had obtained loan from the complainant and entered into loan agreement and also 6 executed necessary documentation, promissory note in favour of complainant and has been maintaining the account with the complainant from time to time. He further contended that on inspite of repeated demands, the accused issued cheque bearing No.827964, dated 08.07.2024 drawn on State Bank of India,

Kothapet Branch, Guntur in faour of complainant for Rs.3,30,213/- towards full and final settlement by excluding the expenses and on presentation of the said cheque in his banker by complainant i.e., The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Lakshmipuram

Branch, Guntur for collection on 08.07.2024 and the same dishonoured “ Funds

Insufficient” and returned with memo, dated 09.07.2024 under Ex.P2, so complainant issued registered legal notice under Ex.P5 to the accused demanding him for payment of cheque amount along with postal receipt, dated 01.08.2024.

He has further contended that the accused having knowledge that he was not having sufficient means to honour the cheque, issued Ex.P1 cheque and as such the acts of the accused attract the offence punishable under section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the complainant has examined himself as PW1 and got exhibited

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and that the accused did not place any cogent evidence before this court in support of his defence, and hence the accused could not rebut the statutory presumption raised in favour of the complainant under Section 139

Negotiable Instruments Act and hence the accused is liable for punishment U/sec.

138 Negotiable Instruments Act and also that accused is liable to pay compensation to him as per law.

13.Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has contended that accused never borrowed any amount from PW and that there is no money transactions between them. Further contended that the complainant need not pay any amount to him and only to get wrongful gain and the complainant filed this false case and accused issued cheque as on the date of sanctioning of the loan and after that the complainant written the date on the cheque i.e., 08.07.2019 not valid and as such 7 the complaint itself is not maintainable and prayed this Court to acquit the accused.

14.Having considered the submissions made on both the sides, the evidence let in on both the sides and material available on record, it seems that it is the specific stand of the complainant that the accused issued cheque bearing

No.827964 for Rs.3,30,213/- dated 08.07.2024 drawn on State Bank of India,

Kothapet Branch, Guntur towards full and final settlement and on presenting it, the said cheque was dishonoured. It is the specific defence of the accused that the complainant got filed this false case against the accused.

15. This court relied upon a decision reported 2003 (2) ALD Criminal 634 (AP)

Shashi Finance Corporation V/s. Super Shine Abrasives Private Limited

wherein it is held that … “Negotiable Instruments Act – Sec.138 (d) – Dishonour

notice sent to an incorrect address and it was returned unversed–

It does not amount to proper service – Complaint is, therefore not

maintainable”.

16.For appreciating such legal position, in this regard the law is well settled by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in betweenKrishna Janardhan Bhatt Vs.

Dattatreya G.Hegde, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1325 wherein, the Hon’ble court observed that “ once the accused has admitted his signature on the cheque, it is bounden duty of trial court to raise a presumption that the cheque involved in the case was issued towards discharge of any debt or other liability. In their subsequent decision in between

Rangappa Vs. Sree Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441” Hon’ble court endorsed the same view and further observed that such presumption can be drawn to the extent that such debt or liability is legally enforceable one.

8

17.This court relied a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in between Kalamani

Tex Anr Vs. P. Balasubramanian 2021 SCC Online SC 75wherein held that ; “ Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a plain reading of its judgment that the trial Court completely overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under

Sec.118 and Section 139 of NIAct. The Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque / negotiable instrument are established, then these 'reverse onus' clauses become operative.

In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him."

18.The learned counsel for the complainant submitted citations :

1) In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in between Sampelly

Satyanarayana Rao Vs., Indian Renewable Energy Development in Criminal Appeal

No.867/2016 wherein held that ; “ We have given due consideration to the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant as well as the observations of this Court in

Indus Airways (supra) with reference to the explanation to Section 138 of the Act and the expression “ for discharge of any debt or other liability” occurring in Section 138 of the Act. We are of the view that the queston whether a post-dated cheque is for “discharge of debt or liability” depends on the nature of the transaction. If on the date of the cheque liability or debt exists or the amount has become legally recoverable, the Section is attracted and not otherwise. Reference to the facts of the present case clearly shows that though the words “security” is used in clause 3.1 (It is was suggested that) of the agreement, the said expression refers to the cheques being towards repayment of the installments. The repayment becomes due under the agreement, the moment the loan is advanced and the installment falls due. It is undisputed that the loan was duly disbursed on 28th

February, 2022 which was prior to the date of the cheques. Once the 9 loan was disbursed and installments have fallen due on the date of the cheque as per agreement, dishonour of such cheques would fall under Section 138 of the Act. The cheques undoubtedly represent the outstanding liability.”

2) In the judgment of the Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate 02 (North) Rohini Court,

Delhi in between I.C.D Vs., BEENA SHABIR AND ANOTHER AIR 2002 SC (6) wherein held that ; “ Issuance of cheque is not disputed by the accused. He has admitted that he issued the cheque in question in blank as security. Section 20

NI Act talks about such instruments. As per this provision, if a person gives duly signed but blank or partly written cheque then he deem to have given implied authority to the holder to fill up the particulars in it and compete it and thus make him liable for the payment mentioned in it. Further it is argued by accused that cheque was given as security. Reliance in such case be placed on ICD vs.Beena Shabir and Anrs. 2002(6) SCC 426 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the security cheques also would fall within the purview of the

Section 138 of the NI Act and a person could not escape his liability”.

19.From the ratio decidendi laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that for the offence under Sec.138 of the Act, the presumptions under Sec.118 (a) and Sec.139 of

NI Act have to be compulsory raised as soon as execution of cheque by accused is admitted or proved by the complainant and thereafter, burden is shifted upon the accused to prove otherwise. A presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists.Applying the above said Section to the case on hand, accused has not disputed the issuance of cheque to PW1 and his signature on the cheque in the entire cross examination. Hence, it shall be presumed that unless the contrary is proved, the complainant received Ex.P1/cheque from the accused for partial discharge of the debt due under the original Ex.P3/ promissory note. Hence, the presumptions under Sec.118 (a) and Sec.139 of N.I.Act have to be compulsory raised in favor of the complainant. Presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable 10

Instruments Act are rebuttable in nature and it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption by placing probable evidence. If the accused succeeds in rebutting the presumption, complainant is not further entitled to the presumption and it is for his to prove that Ex.P1 was issued by the accused to him for partial discharge of the amount due under the original of Ex.P3 promissory note. The burden of the accused in rebutting the said presumption is not as high as that of the complainant and she need not rebut the presumption by proving beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof on the accused is upto preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the accused has never disputed his signature on the cheque/ Ex.P1 and promissory note/Ex.P3 in issue and only raised defence.

20. This court relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported 2025 INSC 1158 in Sanjabij Tari Vs., Kishore S.Borcar And another, wherein it is held that … “Negotiable Instruments Act – Sec.138, 139, 114 – Dishonour of cheque – Presumptions – Scope – Once execution/signature admitted, presumption arises that cheque was for consideration and discharge of legally enforceable debt – Burden initially on accused to rebut by raising probable defence – Mere plea of complainant’s financial incapacity, without documentary or independent evidence, not sufficient- Failure to reply to statutory notice, an adverse inference against accused – Defence that blank cheque given for obtaining bank loan, held unbelievable.

21. This court further relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Padesh at Amaravathi reported 2025 (2) ALD (Crl.) 41 (A) in Thummuru Sita

Ramireddy Vs., Kondamadugula Siva Parvathi and others, wherein it is held that …

11. As seen from the definition of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act, cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a specific banker. The banker as on the date of presentation of the cheque ought to honour the same subject to the standard checks and balances.

12. In the facts of the present case, Vijaya Bank ceased to exist as a banker as on the date when the cheques were presented. The instrument which was drawn on Vijaya Bank looses the identity as a 11 cheque. The movement the amalgamation of banks was recorded and the date notified by the banker to all its customers to surrender the old and collect the cheques of the book into which the earlier bank as amalgamated.

13. As on the date of presentation of the instrument the same was not considered as a Negotiable Instrument and as cheque issued by the Bank of Baroda and as such the cheques were returned with an endorsement referred to drawer, old bank cheque MICR not present, excluded in system. The banker found them true, valid and ineligible for clearance on account of the amalgamation of the Vijaya Bank into Bank of Baroda.

14. As the fundamental instrument on which the complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act is filed has lost its identity as a valid cheque as on the date of its presentation. The criminal proceedings under section 138 of NIAct also cannot lie. Only a Negotiable Instruments can be subject of a complaint under Negotiable instruments Act. This Court finds the case as a fit case for exercise of the inherit powers of this court under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshita Sanhita, 2023.

15. The petitions are allowed in the CC.No.73 of 2024 on the file of I

Additional Chief Metropolitan Court at Vijayawada and CC. No. 353 of

2024 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada are quashed.

22. The above said citation is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. On perusal of the record, from the evidence, it is established that the accused issued

Ex.P1 cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt. The Important aspect under Section 138 (d) of the Act is that notice has to be served on the accused by demanding him to pay the amount due under the act. Unless, it is served on the accused, he has not committed any offence. On perusal of Sec.27 of the general

Clauses Act, 1897, it is clear that to draw presumption of deemed served, it must be proved that the notice has been effected by registered post to be served on the respondent properly. Therefore, by virtue of provisions of Sec.27 of the General

Clauses Act service by post should be deemed to have been effected if the following four conditions are fulfilled i) The cover is sent by registered post, (ii) the 12 cover being properly addressed, (iii) the cover being prepared, and (iv) the cover contains the document sought to be sent to the address.

23.Further, PW1 admitted in his cross examination that he had not filed any permission to represent before the Court as a GPA Holder. PW1 further admitted that Ex.P1 cheque issued by the accused as on the date of sanctioning of the loan and after that the complainant written the date on the cheque. PW1 further admitted that accused paid Rs.2,10,000/- after expiry of limitation for the debt amount. PW1 admitted in his cross examination that the complainant firm sanctioned personal loan to the accused for Rs.2,00,000/- and Ex.P3 was executed by the accused at the time of sanctioning of the personal loan. Further,

PW1 stated in his cross examination that the promissory note contains the date of 17.12.2019 and he has filed the account copy pertaining to the accused loan

before the Court. PW1 further admitted that it is not mentioned in the complaint as

the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque as on the date of sanctioning of the loan. PW1 denied the suggestion that there is no legally enforceable debt between complainant firm and accused. PW1 denied the suggestion that he is deposing evidence without having any GPA as such he is not entitled to depose evidence and as such this case is not maintainable.

24.There is no doubt section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act presumption are available to the complainant. But to available benefit from the above two presumptions the complainant has to establish the legally enforceable debt against the accused and the cheque was issued for discharging such legally enforceable debt or other liability. But in this case, the complainant failed to establish that the accused issued cheque as on the date of sanctioning loan amount in favour of the complainant.

25.It is the duty of the complainant to prove his case with consisting, cogent documentary evidence since initial burden lies on him to prove that the existence 13 of legally enforceable debt the alleged cheque issued towards discharge of such legally enforceable debt. Except PW1, there is no corroborative evidence.

26. Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:

It shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability.

Sec.118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments of consideration. — Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: —

(a) of consideration — that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

Thus a perusal of above provision of law and it’s tenor of language shows that it is mandatory on part of this court to draw the presumption as to the existence of the consideration and the instrument in question being drawn for discharge of the whole or part of an existing liability ( legally enforceable).

But, it is clear from section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that in order to attract the penal provisions in the bouncing of a cheque in Chapter XVII, it is essential that the dishonoured cheque should have been issued in discharge, wholly or in part, or any debt or other liability of the drawer to the payee. The explanation to section 138 defines the expression debt or other liability as a legally enforceable debt or other liability. The explanation to section 138 reads as under :-

Explanation :- For the purpose of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

14

Thus, section 138 is attracted only if the cheque is issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability. In this case, the cheque in question was issued in discharge of arbitration award but at the time of issuance of cheque award was existing or not is the doubtful that might be the reason complainant did not file the award copy along with complainant how far it is proper on the part of complainant by suppressing the material facts filing complaint .

27.These basic facts of the case inspire the invocation of the legal presumption

U/Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant. Thus, the initial burden, that the accused gave cheque to the complainant, is on the complainant. if complainant successfully established the existence of legally enforceable debt issuance of cheque then only onus shifted to the accused, here admittedly accused did not deny the signature on the cheque. Merely accused did not deny his signature it is not proper on the part of the court to come to conclusion that Ex.P1 cheque was issued by the accused towards legally enforceable debt or liability. It is the initial burden of complainant to prove the issuance of cheque on factual basis and technical basis.

28. The circumstances raised by the defence during the cross examination of the

PW1 is enough for damaging the credibility of the complainant case. Here is absolutely justification for discarding from complainant's case. Though the burden of the accused can not equally be compared with that of the complainant, this

Court don't think that the evidence adduced by the complainant is sufficient to rebut the presumption. After considering the evidence on material as a whole, this court is of the opinion that the factual basis for issuing of cheque are not convincingly proved. In the light of above discussion, this court believes that the accused succeeded in discharging the burden of proving that the cheque Ex.P1 was not issued by the accused towards the discharging of debt or liability as contended by the complainant.

15

29.Further, PW1 admitted as the cheque was issued on the date of sanctioning of the loan i.e., on 17.12.2019 when Ex.P3 promissory note was executed by the accused in favour of the complainant firm. But the complainant not filed any loan agreement executed by the accused. But the cheque was presented before the bank on 08.07.2024 by written the date and other contents. But the complainant failed to mention in the complaint as well as in his chief examination as the cheque was issued as on the date of sanctioning of the loan and as the accused issued cheque without mentioning the date. It shows that the complainant materially altered the cheque issued by the accused.

30.On perusal of Ex.P1 it was prepared by the bank in the year 2019.

Moreover, the accused counsel contention the debt of the accused towards the complainant is time bared as the promissory note/Ex.P3 executed on 17.12.2019.

But this complaint filed in the year 2024 after lapse of the limitation of three years.

Hence, time bared debt cannot be enforced against the accused. Moreover, the cheque was not issued in discharging the promissory note cover under Ex.P.3

Moreover, the complainant not demanded the cheque amount through his statutory legal notice as cheque was issued as on the date of the sanctioning of the loan. In his legal notice, he has contended that the accused issued cheque on 08.07.2024. As there is no inconsistency in the version of the complainant about the date of the cheque and validity of the debt.

31. Upon careful perusal of evidence on record, this court came to conclusion that complainant failed to prove his case in factual aspects and technical aspects.

32. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish his case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act.

16

33.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same U/Sec. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties shall be remained in force for six months as required U/sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade -III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Complainant:- For Accused:-

PW1 :Palukuri Subramanya Sai Kumar. Nil.

Documents marked

For Complainant:- For Accused :-

Nil. Ex.P1 : Cheque bearing No.827964, dated 08.07.2024. Ex.P2 : Cheque returned memo, dated 09.07.2024. Ex.P3 : Original promissory note, dated 17.12.2019. Ex.P4 : Notarized copy of Authorization, dated 08.01.2024. Ex.P5 : Office copy of legal notice got issued by the complainant to the accused along with postal receipt, dated 01.08.2024.

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR 17

APGU020036852025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM – II

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : GUNTUR

CALENDAR CASE NO.4422/2024

1Date of Offence 08-07-2024 2Date of Complaint12-09-2024 3Date of Apprehension of Accused - 4Date of Commencement of Trial01-09-2025 5Date of Closure of Trial 17-04-2026 6Date of Judgment24-04-2026 7ComplainantM/s.Godavari Urban Multistate Credit Co-Op Society Limited, rep., by its Incharge Manager Palukuri Subramanya Sai Kumar, Aged about 37 years, Hindu, Located at 12th Line, Next to Presticides Function Hall, Arundelpeta, Guntur.

(Amendedasperordersin

Crl.M.P.No.1439/2024, dt.23.11.2024)

8Name of the Accused Divvela Raja Ganapathi Rao, S/o.Venkata Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 50 years, R/o.D.No.9-7-14, Nadimpalli Vari Street, Railpeta, Guntur.

18

Business Address: M/s.Sri Vigna Raja Fabrics, Rep., by its Divvela Raja Ganapathi Rao, Shop No.466, Sri Vasavi Complex, Kakani Road, Guntur.

9OffenceUnder Section 138 of N.I.Act 10 Plea of AccusedPleaded Not guilty.

11 FindingAccused found not guilty.

12Result In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same U/Sec. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties shall be remained in force for six months as required U/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

13Explanation for delay Due to non production of witnesses

Sd/- D.Dhana Raju.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

Copy submitted to : The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Prl.Civil Judge(Senior Division), Guntur.