G.Anandhi

APEG2700056IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS 72025JUDGE, EAST GODAVARI AT

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

Present: Smt. G.Anandi, III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada.

(FAC) XIII Additional Sessions Judge,

Ramachandrapuram

Thursday, the 9th day of April, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 279 of 2019

From what court the appeal is:Additional Judicial First Class preferredMagistrate’sCourt, Ramachandrapuram Number of the case in that:C.C.No.86 of 2018 Court Number of the Appeal:C.A.No.279 of 2019

Name and description of the:Madineni Prasanna Kumar, S/o AppellantsSitaramayya, Age 51 years, Hindu, R/oD.No.34,10thMain Mriyannaplya Coffee board layout, Hafram Post, Bangalore-560025. Name and description of the:Vytla Surya Prakhasa Rao, S/o 1st respondent /ComplainantPattabhi Rama Rao, Age 58 years, Hindu,R/oD.No.19-12-1, Ratnampeta, Ramachandrapuram Town and Mandal. The sentence and order under: which it was imposed in the lower Court. In the result, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The accused is further directed to pay compensation of two cheques amounts i.e. Rs.4,95,000/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety five thousand only) and R.s4,95,000/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety five thousand only) totalling to Rs.9,90,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs ninety thousand only) to the complainant within a period of two months from this day u/s 357 Cr.P.C. In case of default on payment of compensation amount as ordered by this court, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

C.A.No.279/2019 2

Whether confirmed/modified: Confirmed. or Reversed, if modified the modification

Date of presentation: 14.08.2019

Date of filing: 14.08.2019

Notice issued by Court to: appear14.08.2019

Bail bonds if appellant has: --- been let out on bail

Appellants ordered to appear: 28.02.2020

Date of hearing: 12.03.2026

Date of judgment:09.04.2026

This criminal appeal coming on 02.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Md.M.Chisti, Advocate for the petitioner/

Appellant/Accused, and of Sri M.Srihari, Advocate for the respondent; and upon hearing both sides; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., is against the

Judgment passed in C.C.No.86/2018 on the file Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram dt.02.08.2019.

2.The respondent in the present appeal as complainant before the trial court filed a complaint under Section 190 r/w 200 of Cr.P.C., for the

C.A.No.279/2019 3 offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the appellant/accused herein.

3.The averments of which complaint in brief are that:

The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- from the complainant on 01.05.2016 in order to discharge his sundry debts, and the accused agreed to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., on the even date he also executed promissory note in favour of the complainant.

But he did not repay the amount and on repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused issued two cheques dt.27.08.2017 for

Rs.4,95,000/- and cheque dt.02.09.2017 for Rs.4,95,000/- towards full and final settlement of the promissory note debt. When the complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 07.09.2017 the same were dishonoured and intimated to complainant through return memo with an endorsement "Funds insufficient."

4.Thereupon the complainant issued legal notice dt.11.09.2017 demanding the accused to repay the amount but the accused having received the notice neither gave reply nor repaid the amount. Hence, the complaint.

5.Before the trial court, basing on the sworn affidavit of complainant, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act, against the accused and process was issued.

The accused / appellant on receipt of notice made his appearance before the court, copies were furnished to him under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C., and

C.A.No.279/2019 4 when he was examined under Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, he having understood the same pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the complainant, PW.1 was examined, Ex.P1 to P9 were marked. On completion of complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C, who having understood the incriminating material available against him, being explained to him, denied the same and on his behalf got examined his wife as DW.1, Ex.D.1 was marked.

Thereupon, the trial court on hearing both parties, passed it’s judgment on 02.08.2019 by holding the appellant/ accused guilty for the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

7.It is aggrieved by the said judgment that appellant/ Accused approached this court through the present appeal, on the following grounds of appeal:

(a) The trial court ought to have considered that the complainant stated as if he was filing income tax returns, but fialed to produce any evidence.

(b) The trial court ought to have taken adverse inference as per law, in respect of non-production of income tax returns and any other evidence as to capacity.

C.A.No.279/2019 5

(c) The trial court ought to have considered that the impugned cheques were not given to the complainant, but were given to a 3rd party.

(d) The trial court ought to have considered that the complainant failed to prove by cogent evidence that he has any acquaintance with the accused.

(e) The trial court ought to have considered that there is no relationship between accused and the complainant asper the defence and that there is difference between averments of the complainant and evidence adduced.

(f) The observation of the trial court that P.W.1 orally stated about the capacity and that it is sufficient is erroneous in the light of established law submitted by the accused.

8.Coming before this court, no additional evidence was adduced.

Written arguments were filed by both sides.

9.For sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed before the trial court will be referred to as such, in this appeal as well.

10.Now, the point, for consideration :

1.Whether the complainant could establish the guilt of

accused for the offence under 138 of N.I.Act?

2.Whether there are any grounds to interefere with the findings and judgment of the learned Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram in CC 18/2019?

11.POINT:

C.A.No.279/2019 6

The complainant’s case is that the accused in order to discharge his sundry debts, borrowed a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- from him on 01.05.2016, by executing promissory note agreeing to repay the sum with interest, which he postponed paying and on the persistent demands made by complainant he happened to issue two cheques dt.27.08.2017 for

Rs.4,95,000/- and cheque dt.02.09.2017 for Rs.4,95,000/- towards full and final settlement of the promissory note debt, but the same being presented by him was dishonored for the reason “funds in sufficient”, pursuant to which the complainant happened to issue legal notice dt.19.08.2019, which notice was served on accused, pursuant to which he neither repaid the amount nor gave reply. Hence, his actions attract the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The complainant to substantiate his contentions had examined himself as PW.1 and produced all the relevant documents referred by him in the complaint and reflected in his chief affidavit, as Ex.P1 to P9. Now before getting into the appreciation of evidence to see as to what material, the complainant has adduced to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, it requires to understand as to what amounts to an offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, and what is the material that the complainant in the cases like the one on hand needs to produce to establish the accusation against the accused under the referred provision, for which a perusal of Sec. 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act is necessary the extract of which is reproduced as under:

C.A.No.279/2019 7

Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act:

Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.—

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;

and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

12.The complainant going by the very admission given by D.W.1 in her cross examination that, the cheques Exs.P.1 and P.2 bears the signatures of her husband/accused, itself entitled the complainant to draw presumption under Section 118(a) and Section 113 (9) of Negotiable

C.A.No.279/2019 8

Instruments Act that, the cheques were issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and the accused having admitted his signatures on Exs.P.1 and P.2 cannot simply get away by stating that, the cheques were not issued to the complainant and that he has to rebut the presumption by producing cogent evidence. Which argument of the complainant is absolutely on proper lines. But at the same time to rebut the presumption, it does not necessitate the accused to enter the witness box and give evidence, as such, the argument of the complainant that, the accused not entering into witness box, but examining his wife as

D.W.1 on his behalf, itself says that because he admitted his signatures on Exs.P.1 and P.2, he did not have the audacity to face the cross examination, though sounds a strong point for argument, on behalf of the complainant, in law is not acceptable; So the accused himself not entering into the witness box does not in any way accrue to the benefit of the complainant, nor it diminishes the evidentiary value of D.W.1 who is no other than his wife, under Section 120 of Evidence Act, is a competent witness on behalf of the accused.

13.As seen from the line of cross examination of P.W.1 done by the accused, it appears that, his wife had given his signed blank cheques in connection with chit business at Bangalore, to one Narasimha Rao, who was one of the subscribers in the chit run by D.W.1, and the said

Narasimharao had got filed the case through the complainant herein, if it were to be true, then the evidence of D.W.1 must align with the defence

C.A.No.279/2019 9 introduced at the time of cross examination of P.W.1, but when the evidence of D.W.1 is looked into the chief examination affidavit of D.W.1, speaks another story, as according to the chief affidavit averments, as

D.W.1 who was running chit business sustained loss, she was constrained to give signed blank cheques of her husband to the persons concerning the chit, whom she named in chief examination affidavit as Smt.

Vijayalakshmi, Phydi Sushmitha and Smt. Mamatha, and that in view of the disturbance the husband and wife in fact filed O.S.4190/2016, before the court at Bangalore, and in the said case the 4th defendant

Mr.R.V.Mahesh who is a close associate of Narasimharao, as they do contract business together, had supplied the black signed cheques to

Narasimharao who in turn pressed into service the present case through complainant. So, coming to the evidence of D.W.1, not only the story put forth by accused to state as to how his signed cheques came into the hands of the complainant is at variance, but through the chief examination affidavit of D.W.1 she happened to introduce an entirely new person by name R.V.Mahesh, and definitely as regards the said character the complainant was not cross examined as no question involving RV

Mahesh was put P.W.1, because he was cross examined suggesting that one Narasimharao to whom D.W.1 happened to give blank signed cheques of her husband are misused in filing the complaint through P.W.1 herein.

C.A.No.279/2019 10

14.Be it as may, having contended divergently as discussed above, the accused did not even try to reflect upon as to what is the relationship between Narasimharao and the complainant, the animosity of RV Mahesh or Narasimharao for them to implicate accused into the false case.

Hence, in these circumstances, in the absence of cogent defence, with head or tail, it makes the court to raise a doubt as why complainant would orchesterate accused’s false implication. Thus probabalizing the argument of counsel for complanant that, the defence of the accused is introduced for sake of defence which is why there is no coherence in the story set up by the accused.

15.Even otherwise when accused admits his signature on Exs.P.1 and

P.2, then going by section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which states that, when a person signs and delivers the stamp paper, i.e. wholly blank or incomplete, he/she gives the holder the prima facie authority to complete it. So, when once the accused admitted his signatures on the cheques, even if he claims blank at the time of signing, by virtue of section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act, he is esttoped from denying the authority of the complainant to fill in the remaining particulars. As it has sufficiently come on record that, Exs.P.1 and P.2 cheques were presented within its time frame, and were dishonoured drawing presumption in favour of the complainant that the cheques were issued for lawful consideration, it is the entire burden of accused to rebut, in which with

C.A.No.279/2019 11 the aforesaid discussion it can be held that the accused could not succeed.

16.Yet another aspect raised by the accused is that, P.W.1 has no capacity to advance loan of Rs.7,50,000/- to him, but this court opines that, if at all the defence of accused that the complainant is a stranger to him and he has no necessity to borrow money from a stranger, then it is again for the accused to explain as to how he is able to speak about the financial capacity of a person who he does not know? In fact the said contention of the accused is not acceptable because despite P.W.1 categorically stating that, the accused is the relative of mother-in-law of his own son, never did the accused deny the said aspect, meaning which the contention of the complainant that, the accused is his relative, which is why he gave the amount even without obtaining security sounds probable to accept.

17.Further more, if at all, the contention of the accused that, the complainant is stranger to him contained even a grain of truth, then at least after receiving Ex.P.7 legal notice from the complainant alleged to be a stranger, how can the accused just keep quite without even giving a suitable reply, which is not an expected reaction from a prudent man, because placed in the situation, where a prudent man receives notice demanding a massive sum of Rs.7,50,000/- to be due from some random person, how can anyone keep quite without giving any reply? In fact the immediate re-action of a prudent man would not only be to issue reply,

C.A.No.279/2019 12 but also approach police alleging forgery, because the legal notice refers about the accused issuing two cheques that too specifying cheque numbers, the branch name of the bank, on which it was drawn., not denied by accused to be his account. So accused having not reacted in the way a prudent man is expected to react, for he specifically not denying the notice averments by way of reply, makes this court to opine that, the argument of the complainant’s counsel sounds probable in saying that, because the complainant is the relative of accused on receipt of notice from complainant, who is not a stranger to him, the accused who has no intention to repay the amount did not choose to reply.

18.Having not satisfied with the above contentions, the accused pointed out against the claim of the complainant by stating that, if at all, such a loan was given to the accused, then when P.W.1 admitted he is an income tax assessee, he ought to have disclosed the same in his income tax returns, but P.W.1 himself in his cross examination admitted that he did not disclose the debt due by accused in his income tax returns, thus it being an unaccounted money is not enforceable.

19.At this juncture, the argument on behalf of the complainant that, he not disclosing the loan advanced to the accused in his income tax returns is an issue between him and income tax department which the accused cannot take shelter, and if at all, the non-discloser of the loan of the accused in his income tax returns amount to violation, then he will have to face the penalty, interest whatsoever imposed by the department, but

C.A.No.279/2019 13 it does not accrue to the benefit of the accused, is absolutely proper. As this court also opines that, when there is no provision in the income tax

Act, which makes an amount not shown in the income tax returns, as irrecoverable under Section 138 of NI Act and if at all, the act of complainant not disclosing the loan advanced to accused attracts penalty, it does not altogether render the underlying transaction void or unenforceable may be the consequence of not reflecting transaction in the income tax returns are penal in nature, as rightly put-forth by the complainant attracting interest, penalty etc., from the income tax department, being fiscal consequences do not extinguish the criminal liability of the accused under Section 138 of NI Act. If at all, the argument of the accused is permitted to be allowed, then under the guise of complainant's default in disclosing the transaction in Income Tax

Returns, the unscrupulous borrowers will altogether avoid the repayment, citing the said technical ground defeating the very purpose of Negotiable

Instruments Act.

20.Hence, this court for the reasons assigned above opines that, when the accused has admitted his signatures on Exs.P.1 and P.2, under the

Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption is that those cheques were issued for legally enforceable debt, hence as the accused failed to lead evidence to rebut this presumption, his argument regarding the source of funds of the complainant is collateral issue which does not disapprove the admitted fact that he signed the cheques. Similarly the non discloser of

C.A.No.279/2019 14 the loan given to accused in Income Tax Returns of complainant does not disapprove the existence of legally enforceable debt, as it is an issue for income tax department to address but not for this court. Hence, with the above observation this court has no hesitation to conclude that the accused failed to rebut the presumption raised in support of the complainant concerning Exs.P.1 and P.2, thereby the conclusion is that the accused having borrowed Rs.7,50,000/- from the complainant, to discharge the same issued Exs.P.1 and P.2 cheques, which on presentation were dishonoured, and despite the complainant issuing legal notice within time limit and the same being served on the accused, he neither gave reply nor repaid the amount, thus for his actions he is liable for committing the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. Accordingly, the point is answered.

21.POINT No.2:

In view of this court’s finding under point No.1 that the complainant established the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused, the findings of the trial court being on proper lines supported by cogent reasons needs no interference. Accordingly, the point is answered.

22.In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the calendar and

Judgment dt.02.08.2019 in C.C.86/2018 passed by the Additional Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, is hereby confirmed.

Consequently the conviction and sentence recorded thereunder against

C.A.No.279/2019 15 the accused/ appellant is also confirmed. Accordingly the appeal is disposed off under Sec. 386 of Cr.P.C. Since the appellant is called absent, he is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court on or

before 29.04.2026 failing which the learned Magistrate is empowered to

compel the presence of the Appellant/ accused by issuing Non-Bailable

Warrant and notices to the Sureties of the Accused/Appellant. The

Learned Magistrate is further directed to comply with the Order and report compliance to this Court. The Office is directed to send the free copy of the Judgment to be furnished to the accused/ appellant to the

Trial Court along with Trial Court Record forthwith. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused and his sureties shall stand cancelled after six months from today, as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court, this the 9 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt.G.Anandi

XIII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- Smt.G.Anandi

XIII A.S.J.

Copy to the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram.

// TRUE COPY //

Chief Administrative Officer III Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s court, Kakinada

1 Fair Judgment

APEG2700070IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, 32025RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. G.Anandi, III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada.

FAC of XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram

Thursday, the 12th day of March, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 248 of 2024

From what court the appeal is:Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, preferredAlamuru. Number of the case in that Court:C.C.No.283 of 2024

Number of the Appeal:C.A.No.248 of 2024

Name and description of the:Chandramalla Sekhar, S/o Nagaraju, AppellantsAged 34 years, D.No:-4-42, SC Pathapeta, RCM Church Street, Yeditha Village, Mandapeta Mandal. Name and description of the:State: Sub-Inspector of police, respondents Mandapeta Town police station The sentence and order under: which it was imposed in the lower Court. The Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code and thereby he is acquitted for the same under Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, the Accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and thereby he is convicted for the same under Section 248(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and he is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of TWO YEARS for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/(One Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of TWO MONTHS. The period of remand already undergone by the accused from 31.05.2024 to 31.07.2024 ie. 60 days is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The case property vide CPR.No.29/2023 which were marked as MOS. 1 to 9 i.e. MO.1 is Gold Necklace, MO.2 is Gold and black beads cord with Lakshmi Devi locket, MO.3 is Gold cutted martial cord, MO.4 is Golden Ear Studs with Lakshmi Devi, MO.5 is Gold ring of Lord Venkateswara Swamy and on it written as P Srinu, MO.6 is Gold Anji Ring, MO.7 is Gold Lakshmi Devi Ring, MO.8 is Gold Kunapusa, MO.9 is Cash of Rs. 4,000/-were already returned to PW.1/Nelluri Lakshmi as per the orders in

Crl.MP.No. 283/2024 dated 23.07.2024 and the same shall be holds good

after expiry of appeal time. The Office is directed to furnish the copy of this Judgment to the accused at free of costs under section 353(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused was informed about his right to prefer appeal against the conviction and sentence of this court in this case

C.A.No.248/2024 2 Fair Judgment

Whether confirmed/modified or: Reversed, if modified theConfirmed. modification Date of presentation 09.08.2024 : Date of filing: 17.08.2024

Notice issued by Court to appear: 19.08.2024

Bail bonds if appellant has been: --- let out on bail Appellants ordered to appear: 20.03.2025

Date of hearing: 26.02.2026

Date of judgment:12.03.2026

This criminal appeal coming on 26.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Anjaneyulu, Advocate for the petitioner/Appellant /Accused, and the Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant; and upon hearing both sides; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal is against the judgment dt.31.07.2024 in

C.C.No.283/2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Alamuru.

2.The averments of the charge sheet filed before the trial court in brief is that:

The complainant/P.W.1 resident of Mandapeta is eking her livelihood by doing cooli work and that in the night of 29.05.2024, she by locking the doors went to sleep and on the same night at about 1.00 a.m., when she woke up, she and found that the grill doors in the hall were opened and when she went into the house she found that the doors of iron safe were also opened and on verification, she found missing of gold items i.e. (1) Necklace weighing about 3 sovereigns, (2) Golden

C.A.No.248/2024 3 Fair Judgment black beads with Lakshmi Devi locket weigh about 3 soverigns (3) Golden cutted martial cord weighing about 3 sovereigns (4) Golden Ear Studs with Lakshmi Devi weighing about sovereigns (5) Golden ring of Lord

Venkateswara Swamy and written as P.Srinu on it weighing about one sovereigns (6) Golden Anji ring weighing about 3 sovereigns (7) Golden

Lakshmi Devi ring weighing about 4 sovereigns (8) Golden Kunapusa weighing about 1 sovereign, all weighing about 92 grams and cash of

Rs.4000/-. Hence she approached the police and gave report on 31.05.2024.

Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.4 registered the above crime and he during the course of investigation visited the scene, observed the same, prepared rough sketch, recorded the statements of witnesses and he on the same day on receipt of reliable information about the accused, by securing mediators P.W.3 and L.W.8-Juthuka Sathiyya proceeded to

Yedidha bypass road junction, where during vehicle check at about 11.00 a.m. found the accused travelling in an auto, who on seeing police tried to escape, upon which P.W.4 apprehended him and enquired who revealed his identity particulars as accused herein, and also confessed about commission of theft in the present crime and even produced a packet containing the stolen articles along with cash of Rs.4,000/-, upon which

P.W.4 seized the ornaments and cash under cover of mediators report, arrested the accused, sent him to court for remand and on completion of further investigation he filed charge sheet.

C.A.No.248/2024 4 Fair Judgment

4.On filing of charge sheet, the learned trial court took cognizance for the offence under Sec. 457, 380 of IPC in alternatively for the offence under section 411 of IPC and on appearance of accused he was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. by framing the above charges and accused having understood the charges being explained to him in Telugu, denied the same and pleaded to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 to 4 were examined, Ex.P1 to P4 and M.Os.1 to 9 were marked. On completion of prosecution’s evidence, the accused was examined under sec. 313 of Cr.P.C, who having understood the incriminating material available against him, being explained to him, denied the same and reported no evidence.

6.The trial court on conclusion of trial, considering the material before it, passed it’s judgment on 31.07.2024 by convicting the accused for the offence under Sec.411 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Sec. 411 of

IPC and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.

7.It is aggrieved by the said judgment that Accused approached this court by way of present appeal, on the following grounds of appeal:

a) The confession before the police is not admissible as it is hit section 25 of Indian evidence act. The trial court convicted the petitioner basing on the conjectures and surmises and not on legal evidence.

C.A.No.248/2024 5 Fair Judgment

b) The section 27 of Indian evidence act has no application to the facts of mediator report as there is no fact leading to recovery was found in the mediator's report and the trial court did not appreciate rightly the section 27 of the Indian Evidence act.

c) The trial court ought to have appreciate the evidence of P.W.3 in right prospective as he failed to give the details of passenger in the auto and at least the auto number in which the petitioner was traveling which clearly casts a doubt on the prosecution case.

d) The sentence imposed on the appellant is excessive.

e) As per the evidence of P.W.3 CCTV footage were available at

Yeditha Junction and the police failed to collect the same which bring the truth and the trial court failed to appreciate the same.

8.Coming before this court, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

9. Heard prosecution/respondent. As there was no representation on behalf of the appellant/accused in spite of giving sufficient time, his arguments were treated nil.

10.For sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed before the trial court will be referred to as such, in this appeal as well.

11.Now, the point, for consideration :

1. Whether the prosecution was successful in establishing the guilt of accused for the charge under Sec. 457, 380 of IPC? In Alternatively,

2. Whether the prosecution was successful in establishing the guilt of accused for the charge under Sec. 411 of IPC?

2. Whether there are any reasons to interfere with the

C.A.No.248/2024 6 Fair Judgment findings and judgment passed by the trial court in

CC.283/2024, dt.31.07.2024?

12.POINTs No.1 and 2:

The prosecution's case is that P.W.1 who is eking her livelihood by doing coolie work, in the night of 29.05.2024, by locking the doors of her house at 7th ward, Mandapeta went to sleep and on the same night at about 1.00 a.m., when she woke up, she and found that the grill doors in the hall were opened and when she went into the house she found that the doors of iron safe were also opened and on verification, she found missing of gold items i.e. (1) Necklace weighing about 3 sovereigns, (2)

Golden black beads with Lakshmi Devi locket weigh about 3 soverigns (3)

Golden cutted martial cord weighing about 3 sovereigns (4) Golden Ear

Studs with Lakshmi Devi weighing about sovereigns (5) Golden ring of

Lord Venkateswara Swamy written as P.Srinu on it weighing about one sovereigns (6) Golden Anji ring weighing about 3 sovereigns (7) Golden

Lakshmi Devi ring weighing about 4 sovereigns (8) Golden Kunapusa weighing about 1 sovereign, all weighing about 92 grams and cash of

Rs.4000/-. Hence she approached the police and gave Ex.P.1 report on 31.05.2024, which stolen gold articles and cash of Rs.4,000/- were recovered from the possession of accused by PW.4 in the presence of mediators PW.3 and LW.8/Juthuka Sathiyya. Hence, the prosecution basing on the evidence of PW.1 who categorically stated that her gold onaments were committed theft in the night of 29/30.05.2024, and also in view of the evidence of PW.3 argued that the gold ornaments marked

C.A.No.248/2024 7 Fair Judgment as M.Os.1 to 8 and cash of Rs.4,000/- as M.O.9 belonging to PW.1 being found in the possession of Accused, which as per the report of PW.1 marked as Ex.P1, was committed theft on 29/30.05.2024, the accused has to be held liable as the offender who committed the theft of M.Os.1 to 9.

13.However, this court considering the evidence of PW.1 and the report stated to be given by her marked as Ex.P1, has no qualms in accepting the contention put forth on behalf of accused before the trial court, as seen from the judgment that, as such, PW.1 in her report never stated that she saw accused committing theft of M.O.1 to 9, but she simply stated that some unknown offender committed the theft, and evidently the prosecution did not examine any person, who could say that he/she had seen accused committing theft of M.Os.1 to 9. When as per the definition of theft under Sec.378 of IPC, any person who dishonestly moves any movable property out of the possession of any person without that persons consent, then such person is stated to have committed theft, but here neither PW.1 nor any witness examined on behalf of prosecution ever stated that, they have seen accused by gaining entry into the house of P.W.1 took away M.Os.1 to 9 without the consent of complainant, in which event simply basing on Ex.P1 report stating that, M.Os.1 to 9 belonging to P.W.1 were committed theft, accused herein cannot be held liable of committing the theft of M.Os.1 to 9. Hence, for the reasons assigned above, this court holds that the prosecution could not establish the guilt of accused for the charge under Sec. 457, 380 of IPC.

C.A.No.248/2024 8 Fair Judgment

14.Coming to the seizure of M.Os.1 to 9, from the possession of accused, it is the contention of the prosecution that, PW.4 on 31.05.2024, while conducting vehicle check near Yedidha by-pass road junction, found the accused herein coming in an auto, who on seeing police tried to skulk away, so he chased him, apprheneded him, who on questioning in the presence of mediators PW.3 and LW.8-Juthuka Sathiyya, confessed that he committed theft in a house at 7th ward, SC Peta of Mandapeta village, and that the gold ornaments and cash of Rs.4,000/- which he committed theft, are also in his possession who produced the same which were seized by P.W.4 in the presence of mediators.

15. The prosecution says that, when according to PW.4, M.Os.1 to 9 were seized from the possession of accused, though there is no direct material to show that he had committed theft of those items, when

M.Os.1 to 9 does not belong to him, they being found in his possession, he has to account for the same in which the accused failed, hence it has to be presumed that M.Os.1 to 9 seized from the possession of accused are stolen properties.

16.The prosecutor further argued that, PW.4 by meticulously following the procedure prescribed under Sec. 100 (4) of Cr.P.C had seized M.Os.1 to 9 which is amply substantiated by PW.3 the mediator in whose presence M.Os.1 to 9 were seized and Ex.P2 mediators report came to be drafted. Added to it, the evidence of P.W.2 also substantiate the seizure by P.W.4, who stated that at the request of police he weighed M.Os.1 to 8

C.A.No.248/2024 9 Fair Judgment at Yeditha by-pass road junction on 31.05.2024 and from his cross examination nothing worth to disbelieve his testimony could be elicited.

17.However, as seen from the cross examination of P.W.3 done by the accused it appears that, his defence was that, the Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure under Sec. 100(4) of Cr.P.C., hence the seizure under Ex.P2 is not proper. But as seen from the evidence of PW.2, he stated that, he is VRA of Mandapeta. Thus, he is a public servant, an independent person who has no enmity with accused, hence, has no reason to depose falsely against the accused herein. Of course, as per

Sec. 100(4) of Cr.P.C. it says that while making a search, the Police

Officer shall call for respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated, but in this case no such person, living in the said locality where the search and seizure took place, was taken as mediator by the Investigating agency, hence it is not a proper compliance of Sec. 100(4) of Cr.P.C., thus making the seizure itself defective, is another defence of accused as seen from the cross examination of P.W.3.

But, this court opines that, when the self same section also recites that

before making the search under the chapter, Officer or other person

about to make it, shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality, in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality, if no such inhabitants of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search, which manifests that though the Officer making search shall call upon two or more independent, respectable inhabitants in

C.A.No.248/2024 10 Fair Judgment the locality, it also gives option stating that if no such inhabitants of the locality is available then the officer can secure persons from any other locality. Hence, merely because PW.3, is not inhabitant of the place, where the search was made and he hails from another locality, but that does not altogether disqualify him to act as a mediator.

18.Above all, he being a public servant acted as a mediator by expressing willingness, in the opinion of this court he satisfies the requirements under Sec. 100(4) of Cr.P.C. So, the search made in the presence of PW.3 in the opinion of this court need not be found fault with, and according to him basing on the confession of accused, M.Os.1 to 9 were seized from his possession. Of course, the defence of accused in saying that confession made to the police Officer is in admissible and hit by Sec. 25 of Indian Evidence Act is true and based on sound legal basis, but when as per Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act, any confession leading to recovery, is admissible to the extent of recovery of such material. When basing the confession given by accused at his instance and in his possession, M.Os.1 to 9 were seized certainly such seizure is admissible under Sec.27 of Evidence Act. Hence, now it is for the accused who is shouldered with the burden of accounting for the possession of M.Os.1 to 9, which does not belong to him. When it was never the claim of the accused that M.Os.1 to 9 found in his possession belongs to him, the only inference that flows is that M.Os.1 to 9 belonging to P.W.1 found in his possession, when admittedly in respect of M.Os.1 to 9, FIR was registered, which shows that M.Os.1 to 9 found in the possession of

C.A.No.248/2024 11 Fair Judgment accused are the stolen properties belonging to P.W.1, the same being found in the possession of accused, it is for him to account for the possession of the property, that it does not belong to him, in which certainly the accused failed, because he could not state as to how and why he came into possession of M.Os.1 to 9. In which event by virtue of

Sec. 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act, the court may presume that accused found in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or the person received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless accused account for the possession, as already stated above accused could not account for the possession of M.Os .1 to 9 by him, in which event going by the presumption the only conclusion that this court can arrive at, is that accused having been found in possession of M.Os.1 to 9 belonging to P.W.1 is in possession of the same as receiver of stolen property. Consequently, it has to be held that the prosecution was successful in establishing the charge under Sec. 411 of IPC against accused. Accordingly, the points 1 and 2 are answered against the appellant.

19. POINT NO.3:

In view of this court’s findings under Point No.1 and 2, opines that the findings and the observations of the trial court as regards the charge under Sec.457, 380 and 411 of IPC being on proper lines, the trial court’s finding that accused is found guilty for the charge under Sec.411 of IPC being absolutely proper, needs no interference. Accordingly, the point is answered against the appellant.

C.A.No.248/2024 12 Fair Judgment

20.In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the calendar and Judgment dt.31.07.2024 in C.C.283/2024 passed by the

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru. Consequently, the conviction and sentence recorded thereunder against the accused/appellant is also confirmed. Accordingly the appeal is disposed off under Sec. 384 of

Cr.P.C. Since the appellant is called absent, he is directed to surrender

before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alamuru on or

before 25.03.2026 failing which the learned Magistrate is empowered to

compel the presence of the Appellant/ accused by issuing Non-Bailable

Warrant and notices to the Sureties of the Accused/Appellant. The

Learned Magistrate is further directed to comply with the Order and report compliance to this Court. The Office is directed to send the free copy of the Judgment to be furnished to the accused/appellant to the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alamuru along with Trial Court

Record forthwith. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused and his sureties shall stand cancelled from today, as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12 th day of March, 2026.

XIII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

XIII A.S.J.

Copy to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru.

C.A.No.248/2024 13 Fair Judgment // TRUE COPY //

Chief Administrative Officer XIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s court, Ramachandrapuram

C.A.No.248/2024 14 Fair Judgment

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE::

AT RAMACHANDRAPURAM

APEG2700 05762025 Present: Smt. G.Anandi, III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada. FAC of XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

Thursday, the 12th day of March, 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 67 of 2020

From what court the appeal is: Principal Junior Civil Judge – Cum - preferredJudicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram.

Number of the case in that: C.C.No.187 of 2018 Court Number of the Appeal: C.A.No.67 of 2020

Name and description of the: KandukuriUmadevi,W/o AppellantPedalakshmi Narasimha Murthy, R/o D.No.3-76, Penumalla village, Kajuluru Mandal, Gollapalem PS.

Name and description of the:Vasamsetti Lavanya, W/o Bhima respondent Sankara Rao, R/o D.No.6-53, Thiranmapeta, Velampalem village, RamachandrapuramMandal, Draksharama PS. The sentence and order under: which it was imposed in the lower Court.

XIII Addl.District Court, 2C.A.No.67/2020 Ramachandrapuram.

In the result, this Court finds that the accused is found guilty for the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, she is convicted under Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default of payment of fine amount, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for four days. The accused is further directed to pay compensation of cheque amount i.e., Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand only) to the complainant within a period of two months from this day U/Sec.357 Cr.P.C.. In case of default on payment of compensation amount as ordered by this court, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The complainant can file petition for enforcement of this order, in case of default of compensation amount by the accused as ordered by this court. Accused paid fine amount of Rs.2,000/-Vide receipt No. 16655, dt.11-02-2020 : Whether confirmed/modified Confirmed or Reversed, if modified the modification

Date of presentation: 24.02.2020

Date of filing: 24.02.2020

Notice issued by Court to: appear25.02.2020

Bail bonds if appellant has: --- been let out on bail

Appellant ordered to appear: 24.03.2020

Date of hearing: 19.02.2026

Date of judgment: 12.03.2026

This criminal appeal coming on 26.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Santharam, Advocate for the

Appellant/Accused, and of Sri K.Lova Raju, Advocate for respondent/ complainant; and upon hearing both sides; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

XIII Addl.District Court, 3C.A.No.67/2020 Ramachandrapuram.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal filed under section U/sec. 372 of Cr.P.C., is against the judgment passed by Judicial Principal Junior Civil Judge – Cum - Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram in C.C.No.187/2018

dt.11.02.2020.

2.The complainant/respondent before the trial court filed a complaint under Section 190 r/w 200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

3.The case of complainant in brief is that:

On 15.05.2016 the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant, by executing promissory note, agreeing to repay the same, but despite the repeated demands made by the complainant he did not make payment and finally issued a cheque dt.03.10.2017 for

Rs.1,80,000/- towards part payment of the debt. The complainant presented the cheque on the same day at State Bank of India,

Draksharama branch, for collection but the same was returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” vide memo dt.04.10.2017. Hence, immediately the complainant issued legal notice dt.24.10.2017 requesting the accused to make payment within the stipulated time, but the accused refused to receive the notice and the same was returned on 27.10.2017.

Hence, as the accused voluntarily and willfully, with a dishonest intention

XIII Addl.District Court, 4C.A.No.67/2020 Ramachandrapuram.

gave cheque to the complainant which was not honoured, he happened to file the present complaint.

5.Basing on the said complaint, the Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First

Class, Ramachandrapuram took cognizance under Section 138 r/w 142 of

NI Act against the accused, issued notice to him.

6.As seen from the record, at the stage of appearance of the accused, record was transferred to the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ramachandrapuram as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble District Judge,

East Godavari dt.01.11.2018 which was renumbered as C.C.187/2018.

7.Thereupon on appearance of the accused, she was examined under

Section 251 Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, she having understood the same pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.On behalf of the complainant, Pws.1 and 2 were examined, Ex.P1 to P6 were marked. On completion of complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C, who having understood the incriminating material available against her, being explained to her, denied the same and reported no evidence. Thereupon, the trial court on hearing both parties, passed it’s judgment on 11.02.2020 by holding the appellant/ accused guilty for the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default of payment of fine amount, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for four days. The accused was further

XIII Addl.District Court, 5C.A.No.67/2020 Ramachandrapuram.

directed to pay compensation of cheque amount i.e., Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand only) to the complainant.

9.It is aggrieved by the said judgment that the accused approached this court by way of present appeal, on the following grounds of appeal.

1. The Trail Court failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective, the Trail Court failed to follow the rules of criminal jurisprudence that the accused shall always be presumed, innocent and any benefit of doubt shall leans infavour of the accused.

2. While retracting the evidence of PW-1 the Trail Court failed record any finding regarding lending capacity of Complainant fo which the

Honourable Apex Court observed that in order to prov lending

capacity of the complainant, the burden heavily lies on th complainant to show that he has sufficient amount to advance the same and also further observe the complainant has to discharg initial burden that he has sufficient funds to raise a presumption in

3. Further the Trail Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-1 which does not disclose her financial capacity to advance such huge amounts and also not showing the same in the income tax returns and also not maintaining the books of accounts lending of amounts as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

Kanakamedala Venkata Krishna Vs. Peram Sai Swarupa reported in 2017 (2) A.L.D. Criminal, Page 981.

10.Coming before this court no additional evidence was adduced.

XIII Addl.District Court, 6C.A.No.67/2020 Ramachandrapuram.

11.Heard, respondent as the appellant failed to argue despite giving sufficient time her arguments were treated nil.

12.Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the complainant could establish the guilt of accused for the offence u/s 138 of NI Act?

2. Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the findings and judgment passed by the trial court in C.C.No.187/2018?

13. POINT No.1:

The complainant’s case is that the accused borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- by executing promissory note, agreeing to repay the same but despite the repeated demands made by the complainant she did not make payment and finally issued a cheque dt.03.10.2017 for

Rs.1,80,000/- towards part payment of the debt. The complainant presented the cheque on 03.10.2017 at State Bank of India,

Draksharama branch, for collection but the same was returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” vide memo dt.04.10.2017. Hence, immediately the complainant issued legal notice dt.24.10.2017 requesting the accused to make payment within the stipulated time, but the accused refused to receive the notice and the same was returned on 27.10.2017.

Hence, as the accused voluntarily and willfully, with a dishonest intention gave cheque to the complainant which was not honoured, she happened to file the present complaint.

XIII Addl.District Court, 7C.A.No.67/2020 Ramachandrapuram.

14.The complainant to substantiate her contentions had examined herself as PW.1 and produced all the relevant documents referred by her in the complaint and reflected in her chief affidavit, as Ex.P1 to P6. Now

before getting into the appreciation of evidence to see as to what material

the complainant has adduced to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, it requires to understand as to what amounts to an offence under Sec.138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act, and what is the material that the complainant in the cases like the one on hand needs to produce to establish the accusation against the accused under the referred provision, for which a perusal of Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is necessary the extract of which is reproduced as under:

Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act:

Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.—

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—

XIII Addl.District Court, 8C.A.No.67/2020 Ramachandrapuram.

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;

and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

15.So, it is the initial burden of the complainant to establish that the accused happened to issue cheque towards the discharge of legally enforceable debt which on presentation was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds in the account of accused, thereafter she has to issue a written demand notice within 30 days of the cheque being returned, and receiving the same the drawer / accused, if fails to pay the amount within 15 days of the notice, her actions become punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. That being, the crux of the provision, it mandates that the complainant to establish that the cheque marked as Ex.P2 was issued by the accused herein towards the discharge of legally enforceable debt, to answer the said point when the evidence of

PW.1 was looked into, the court observed that, her oral evidence is supported by both documentary evidence and the oral evidence of P.W.2, however it appears from cross examination done by accused, her defence

XIII Addl.District Court, 9C.A.No.67/2020 Ramachandrapuram.

is a total denial of the complainant’s contention because according to her there is no debtor and creditor relationship between her and complainant and that she did not issue Ex.P.1 and P.2 to the complainant and it appears as seen from the line of cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, by the accused, her contention was that the 1st attestor of Ex.P.1 K.Subba

Rao is the man behind the complainant in filing the present case. But no suggestion was put to p.Ws.1 and 2, touching the reason that would prompt P.W.1 to file false case against the accused herein without which it appears to be a mere allegation. Added to it, even from the cross examination of P.W.2, the attestor of Ex.P.1 no material worth to support the contention of accused that Ex.P.1 was not executed by her. Of course

P.Ws.1 and 2 are husband and wife and P.W.2 supporting the contention of P.W.1 is quite probable, but merely because they are husband and wife it alone does not disqualify P.W.2 to be a witness on behalf of his wife. In fact from the cross examination of P.W2, the accused had elicited minute details concerning the transaction under Ex.A.1, such as, as to where the transacton took place, at what time, but could not elicit any material to doubt the testimony of P.W.2.

16.Added to it, it is from the cross examination of P.W.2 that this court came to know that the scribe of Ex.P.1 is the very brother of accused. If at all the transaction under Ex.P.1 is not true, then the best piece of evidence available with the accused is to produce the scribe of Ex.P.1, her own brother but for the reasons best known to the accused, she did not

XIII Addl.District Court, 10C.A.No.67/2020 Ramachandrapuram.

choose to examine her brother. Further more, it is not even her defence that she has no cordial terms with the scribe of Ex.P.1, her brother. Then the question is, why did the accused not examine her brother if at all as contended by the accused Ex.P.1 was not executed by her on 15.05.2016 in favour of the complainant, from the in action of accused the only conclusion that flows is that, because the transaction under Ex.P.1 was true, the accused did not have the audacity of examining the scribe of

Ex.P.1. So this court appreciating the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 does not find any reasons to disbelieve their contention that, the accused on 15.05.2016 while borrowing Rs.2,00,000/- from P.W.1 executed Ex.P.1 promissory note.

17.Coming Ex.P.2 never did the accused deny her signature on it, so the inference is, Ex.P.2 cheque was issued by the accused towards discharge of legally enforceable debt due under Ex.P.1 promissory note.

Which opinion of this court, is further strengthened going by the endorsement on Ex.P.6 the postal cover that was returned with an endorsement “refused”. At this juncture the argument on behalf of the respondent that because the accused knew the contents of notice intentionally refused to receive it, sounds quite probable to accept. So it can be concluded that Ex.P2 cheque was issued by the accused herself, and to the question whether the said cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt or not, Ex.P.1 promissory note is the answer.

Consequently it has to be held that the complainant was successful in

XIII Addl.District Court, 11C.A.No.67/2020 Ramachandrapuram.

discharging the initial onus placed on her, thereby she becomes entitled to draw the presumption under Sec. 118 and 139 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act.

18.Evidently the above discussion makes it clear that, there is no attempt from the accused to disprove the case of complainant, which means there is no material that could dislodge the presumption drawn in favour of the holder of the cheque Ex.P2 i.e., the complainant herein.

Though it does not necessitate the accused to enter the witness box in order to disprove the contention of the complainant, and it is sufficient that the accused by eliciting material from the cross examination of

P.Ws.1 and 2, could probabalize her defence that Ex.P.1 and P.2 were not issued by her to the complainant, as already opined above, the accused did not succeed in it, because despite the scribe of Ex.P.1 being her own brother, she did not even examine him to speak on her behalf, if her contentions were true, that Ex.P.1 was not executed by her in favour of complainant, thus, there is no necessity to issue Ex.P.2 cheque. Hence, it has to be held that no material probablizing the defence of accused could be brought on record, resultantly the court must say that the accused failed in dislodging the presumption drawn in respect of Ex.P.2 cheque.

Now having arrived at such a conclusion, as regards the remaining requirements which the complainant is necessitated to comply with subsequent to receiving Ex.P4 cheque return memo i.e., issuing notice to the accused within 30 days of receiving Ex.P4 return memo, she did

XIII Addl.District Court, 12C.A.No.67/2020 Ramachandrapuram.

issue notice, hence the complainant has complied with the said mandate by issuing Ex.P5 notice on 24.10.2017, which was refused to be received by the accused, as seen from the endorsement on Ex.P.6. Further the record is evident that she failed to make payment within 15 days after receiving the notice, which documentary evidence shows that the complainant has satisfied all the requirements under Sec. 138 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act, that was mandated on her part, as a complainant to discharge. Therefore, the sum and substance of the above made discussion is that, the complainant could establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument

Act, beyond reasonable doubt. Thereby the accused is liable for conviction for the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Accordingly, this point is answered against the appellant.

19. POINT No.2:

In view of this court arriving at such a conclusion under point No.1, the findings and the judgment of the trial court being on proper lines, needs no interference. Accordingly, this point is also answered against the appellant.

20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the calendar and

Judgment dt.11.02.2020 in C.C.187/2018 passed by the Principal Junior

Civil Judge – Cum - Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, is

hereby confirmed. Consequently the conviction and sentence recorded there under against the accused/ appellant is also confirmed. Accordingly

XIII Addl.District Court, 13C.A.No.67/2020 Ramachandrapuram.

the appeal is disposed off under Sec. 386 of Cr.P.C. Since the appellant is called absent, she is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court on or before 30.03.2026 failing which the learned Magistrate is empowered to compel the presence of the Appellant/ accused by issuing

Non-Bailable Warrant and notices to the Sureties of the

Accused/Appellant. The Learned Magistrate is further directed to comply with the Order and report compliance to this Court. The Office is directed to send the free copy of the Judgment to be furnished to the accused/ appellant to the Trial Court along with Trial Court Record forthwith. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused and her sureties shall stand cancelled after six months from today, as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.II and corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12 th day of March, 2026.

XIII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

XIII A.S.J.

Copy to the Principal Junior Civil Judge – Cum - Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram.

XIII Addl.District Court, 14C.A.No.67/2020 Ramachandrapuram.

// True copy //

XIII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

XIII Addl.District Court, 15C.A.No.67/2020 Ramachandrapuram.

// True Copy //

Senior Superintendent.

1 CRP No.6/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

APEG270005

JUDGE :: RAMACHANDRAPURAM

122025 Present: Smt.G.Anandi III Addl. District Judge, Kakinada, FAC of XIII Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram

Thursday, the 2nd day of April, 2026.

CRL. REVISION PETITION No.6/2023 (M.C.No.27/2019 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alamuru.

Between:

Nagabathula Sudheer, S/o Jeevanandam, Caste by SC, 33 yrs, Unemployee, Pedapalla, Alamuru [M], Alamuru P.S. Limits ... Revision Petitioner/Complainant

AND

1. Nagabathula Mayushi, D/o. Sudheer, Caste by SC, 3 yrs, D.No.3- 132/2A, Puttavari Street, Maredubaka, Mandapeta [M], Mandapeta Town PS. Limits, Alamuru DMC [being minor mother guardian Nagabathula Vijaya Deepika, W/o Sudheer, D/o Pachipala Ashok Kumar, Caste by SC, 30 yrs, Branch Post Master, Grameena Dak Sevak Post Office, D No.3-132/2A, Puttavari Street, Maredubaka, Mandapeta [M], Mandapeta Town P.S. Limits, Alamuru DMC. [Petitioner]

2. State Rep. by A.P.P.

… Respondents

This Criminal Revision Petition is preferred against the order dt.16.11.2022 in M.C.No.27/2019 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alamuru.

Between:

1. Nagabathula Vijaya Deepika, W/o Sudheer, Age 27 years, D.No.D No.3- 132/2A, Puttavari Street, Maredubaka, Mandapeta [M], Mandapeta Town P.S. Limits, Alamuru DMC.

2 CRP No.6/2023

2. Nagabathula Mayushi, D/o. Sudheer, Caste by SC, 3 yrs, D.No.3- 132/2A, Puttavari Street, Maredubaka, Mandapeta [M], Mandapeta Town PS. Limits, Alamuru DMC [being minor mother guardian Nagabathula Vijaya Deepika, W/o. Sudheer, D/o. Pachipala Ashok Kumar, Caste by SC, 30 yrs, Branch Post Master, Grameena Dak Sevak Post Office, D No.3-132/2A, Puttavari Street, Maredubaka, Mandapeta [M], Mandapeta Town P.S. Limits, Alamuru DMC. …Petitioners

And

Nagabathula Sudheer, S/o Jeevanandam, Caste by SC, 33 yrs, Unemployee, Pedapalla, Alamuru [M], Alamuru P.S. Limits … Respondent

This petition is coming on 02.04.2026 for hearing in the presence of

Sri K.S.Lakshminarayana, Sri A.V.CH.S.S.Murthy, Sri D.Ashok Kumar,

Advocates for the Revision Petitioner and of Sri P.Rama Raju, Advocate for respondent, and upon hearing both sides; and having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 of Criminal

Procedure Code is against the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Alamuru in M.C.No.27/2019, dt.16.11.2022.

2.The averments of the petition filed by the petitioner in M.C.27/2019 is that; The petitioner was married to the respondent on 17.08.2017 at

Pedapalla village of Alamuru as per Hindu Rites and Customs, that at the time of marriage, the respondent told her family that, he was working as

Andhra Bank Net Work provider and drawing salary of Rs.18,000/- and that from January, 2018 he would get salary hike to Rs.30,000/-, believing his 3 CRP No.6/2023 words the parents of the petitioner performed their marriage by giving

Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry and also purchased saree samans worth

Rs.2,50,000/-. After the marriage, she joined the respondent, their marriage was consummated and was blessed with 2nd petitioner on 23.04.2019.

3.The petitioner says that, since her marriage with the respondent he and his parents used to harass her physically and mentally demanding to bring additional dowry and many a times the issue was also placed before elders, but neither the respondent nor his parents ever changed their attitude. In the meanwhile, she gave birth to twins but unfortunately one of the twin child died due to health problem and the respondent and his parents used to harass the petitioner for she begetting girl child. While so, on 14.07.2019 the respondent and his family members beat her and threatened her with dire consequences stating if she fails to fulfill their demand they would perform to 2nd marriage to respondent, hence, the petitioner unable to bear their harassment, gave report to police.

4.While things stood thus, as the respondent neglected the petitioner by not even providing them basic amenities and drived them away out of the house, despite having sufficient means to look after the petitioners, the 1st petitioner who is unable to meet the expenses of herself and 2nd petitioner on her own through petition, prayed to grant maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners.

4 CRP No.6/2023

5.That being the petition averments, the respondent opposed the application stating that, he was unemployed at the time of marriage, he does not have any movable or immovable properties, and that is the 1st petitioner is working as GDSBPM, in post office, Maredubaka and because the respondent was not having any avocation. The 1st petitioner from the beginning was having aversion towards the respondent, who used to frequently quarrel with the respondent for no reason, but still the respondent adjusted with the behaviour of the 1st petitioner, hoping that she would change her attitude, but the 1st petitioner who was addicted to lead luxurious life, always insulted the respondent and she herself unable to lead conjugal life with the respondent, left his conjugal home without any proper reason. In fact, the 1st petitioner being employee having earning capacity, she is not only entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent, in deed she has to pay maintenance to the respondent who is not having any income source. So, saying prayed to dismiss the application.

6.Before the trial court on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and on behalf of the respondent R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined but no documentary evidence was adduced on either side.

7.The trial court on conclusion of enquiry, considering the material available before it passed orders in M.C.No.27/2019 by granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner. While dismissing the claim of 1st petitioner.

5 CRP No.6/2023

8.It is aggrieved by the said orders that, the respondent therein to file the present revision petition challenging the said orders on the following grounds of appeal:

1. The trial court without giving weight to the admissions made by the witnesses of the P.Ws ordered the maintenance to the respondent

No.1

2. The trial court granted maintenance to the respondent No.2 without considering the facts on record that Nagabathula Vijaya Deepika is

Central Government Employee working as Grameena Dak Sevak

Branch Postmaster and she is working since 2014 more than 9 years and earning more than Rs.20,000/- p.m. as salary.

3. It was not considered by the trial court while passing the orders the admitted fact is that there is no avocation dmittedly to the revision petitioner now as per allegations of the Nagabathula Vijaya Deepika on behalf of the respondent No.1.

4. The trial court failed to see that so, the question of demand of dowry by the revision petitioner and payment of dowry by Nagabathula

Vijaya Deepika does not arise at all and it is invented for the purpose of the petition.

5. The trial court failed to see that Nagabathula Vijaya Deepika voluntarily left the conjugal life of the revision petitioner without any reasonable cause or excuse with an intention to harass the revision 6 CRP No.6/2023 petitioner and did not choose to join the revision petitioner and did not allow the revision petitioner to join her

6. The trial court failed to see that one way it was accepted that the

Nagabathula Vijaya Deepika failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence to establish the earnings of the revision petitioner to maintain the 1st respondent and on admission of Nagabathula Vijaya

Deepika, she is working as branch post master, Grammena Dak Sevak

Branch, Maredubaka, but granted maintenance to the 1st respondent

7. The trail court erroneously come to a conclusion that the revision petitioner neglected Nagabathula Vijaya Deepika instead PW-1 admitted that Nagabathula Vijaya Deepika and the revision petitioner shifted their residence to Maredubaka [V] where she is working and they lived together only for 2 months and since then the revision petitioner is residing at his village Pedapalla

8. The trial court failed to see that Nagabathula Vijaya Deepika is in fault while residing separately by her and revision petitioner, because they lived lastly together at Maredubaka [V], which is her parents village and she thrown out the revision petitioner from her house.

9. The trial court failed to see that Nagabathula Vijaya Deepika filed 498 [A] IPC case and also DVC case against the revision petitioner and others with false allegations and they are pending.

7 CRP No.6/2023

10.The trial court was not considered the facts and circumstances and when he is un-employee, how he can come to a conclusion the 1 respondent is entitle Rs.5,000/- p.m. from the revision petitioner.

9.Coming before this court, both the parties did not advance their arguments despite granting more than sufficient time, hence their arguments were treated nil.

10.For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in M.C.No.3/2020 will be referred to as such in this revision petition as well.

11.Now point for consideration:

Whether there are any tenable grounds to interfere with the findings and orders passed by the trial court in M.C.27/2019?

12.POINT:

As seen from the record, the petitioner to support her contention apart from filing her evidence as P.W.1, got examined her father as P.W.2 and another independent witness as P.W.3. Needless to say the chief evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 was in line with the 1st petitioner’s narrative substantiating her contention and according to P.W.1, the respondent had neglected P.W.1 and her child and that he and his parents always harassed the 1st petitioner demanding additional dowry, which intensified after the birth of 2nd petitioner who is a girl child and though the 1st petitioner bore the harassment of the respondent with hope that he would change his attitude he never changed, and though the matter was placed before the elders, there was no change in the attitude of respondent and his parents. May be 8 CRP No.6/2023

P.W.2 being the father of P.W.1 supporting her contention cannot be blindly accepted, but coming to P.W.3 shown as an independent person, he also categorically spoke about the harassment of respondent towards 1st petitioner. In fact though not proved through any documentary evidence, it has come from very mouth of respondent No.1, that he filed petition seeking divorce from 1st petitioner, and it is also admitted by P.W.1 herself that, she lodged a criminal complaint against the respondent for the offence under

Section 498-A of IPC, thus indicating that the parties are at logger heads.

13.Though the respondent in his counter contended that he never neglected his wife and child and he himself bore the attitude of his wife who always wanted to live luxurious life, going by his admission that, he himself moved petition for divorce, does not align with his contention of he adjusting with the 1st petitioner. Had his contention was true that, he always wanted to continue his marital life and it is P.W.1 who harassed him, then instead of filing petition for divorce he could have, to prove his bonafides, filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, if at all P.W.1 on her own deserted him. So his own action in filing a petition for divorce does not match the contention of respondent that there is no negligence on his part to look after his wife and daughter, thereby making this court to opine that the contention of the 1st petitioner that, she was forced to leave the conjugal society of her husband, because of his attitude of negligence, sounds probable to accept.

9 CRP No.6/2023 14.This court having arrived at an opinion as above, because the respondent neglected to take care of his wife and child, harassed his wife to leave his company, thus there was no fault on part of P.W.1 in leaving the society of the respondent meaning which she did not leave the company of her husband voluntarily. Of course that itself does not automatically ensure her the benefit of claiming maintenance from her husband. The another important aspect that matters for consideration is whether the petitioners have no sufficient income to maintain themselves? and whether the respondent despite having sufficient means is intentionally neglecting to pay maintenance to his wife and child? On this aspect this court must say that, the very evidence of P.W.1 makes it clear that 1st petitioner even prior to her marriage, has been working at Maredubaka post office and her monthly salary is Rs.10,000/-, though she stated to be a contract employee, her said admission indicates that, she has source of income.

15.Coming to the 2nd petitioner, needless to say she is a minor child deserves to be maintained by the parents, now the question is merely because the mother of the 2nd petitioner is earning, does it absolve the responsibility of father to provide maintenance? Certainly not. May be the relationship between the husband and wife had reached an irreparable point where they are not able to live together, and they have their own reasons to live separately, but that shall not effect the child’s growth in any manner, nor does the such situation accrue to the benefit of the respondent to say that, because the child is living with his wife, he has no responsibility to pay 10 CRP No.6/2023 maintenance to the kid; when he is father of the child, he his bound to provide maintenance to the kid; May be his wife is self sufficient to maintain herself, but merely because P.W.1 is earning member, the respondent being the father of the child cannot sit back by throwing the burden of raising the child on the mother alone. When it is not the contention of the respondent that, he is suffering from any disability, merely because the petitioner could not prove that the respondent is earning Rs.30,000/- per month as contended by her in the petition, when the respondent is abled person, he is bound to provide maintenance to his child. Hence, this court having arrived at such an opinion finds no irregularity in the order passed by the trial court, whereunder while dismissing the claim of maintenance by the 1st petitioner, had rightly ordered maintenance to the daughter of respondent i.e. 2nd petitioner at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. In view of this court arriving at such a conclusion, it does not find any reasons to interfere with the findings and orders passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the point is answered.

16. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the Orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Alamuru Dt.16.11.2022 in M.C.27/2019.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 2 nd day of April, 2026.

XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

11 CRP No.6/2023

Appendix of Evidence No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram . Copy to:

1. The Hon’ble District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

2. The Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alamuru.

12 CRP No.6/2023 // t.c.f.b.o. //

APEG2700IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS 06322025JUDGE:: AT RAMACHANDRAPURAM Present: Smt. G.Anandi, III Additional Sessions Judge , Kakinada. FAC of XIII Additional Sessions Judge , Ramachandrapuram.

Thursday, the 23rd day of April, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 46 of 2023

From what court the appeal is: Addl.JudicialFirstClass preferredMagistrate’s Court, Anaparthi. Number of the case in that: C.C.No.327 of 2017 Court Number of the Appeal: C.A.No.46 of 2023

Name and description of the: Thota Raja, S/o.Nava Mani Raju, Appellant/ accused Hindu, Age.42 years, Occ.Teacher, R/o.Koppaka village, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District. Name and description of the:Kovvuri Veera Manikanta Reddy, respondent/DefactoS/o.Sai Baba Reddy, Hindu, Age.30 Complainant.years, Occ. Business & Cultivation, R/o.Anaparthi village and mandal, East Godavari District. The sentence and order under: which it was imposed in the lower Court. In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act, 1881. Accordingly the accused is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.PC. Therefore, the accused is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.PC for the offence punishable under section 138 r/w.142 of NI Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. A part from that, with regard to the amount of cheque, the accused is directed to pay cheque amount towards compensation to the complainant, in default of payment of said compensation, the accused has to undergo simple imprisonment for period of six months. Whether confirmed/modified: Set aside or Reversed, if modified the modification Date of presentation: 27.01.2023 Date of filing: 28.01.2023 Notice issued by Court to: 28.02.2023 appear

C.A.No.46/2023 2 Draft Judgment

Bail bonds if appellant has: --- been let out on bail Appellants ordered to appear: 28.02.2023

Date of hearing: 16.04.2026

Date of judgment: 23.04.2026

This criminal appeal coming on 23.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. MD.M.Chisti, Advocate for the

Appellant/Accused, and the Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/

Complainant; and upon hearing both sides; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT IN TERMS OF MEDIATION

1.This appeal is against the judgment passed by the Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Anaparthi in CC No.327/2017 on 03.01.2023, by

Convicting the accused in the said case for the offence Under Sec.138 of

NI Act.

2.The averments of the complaint filed before the trial court in brief is that:

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant on 15.05.2016 by executing a promissory note, and agreeing to repay the amount with interest @ 24% p.a., but inspite the repeated demands of the complainant he did not repay the amount and finally issued a cheque, dated.21.04.2017 for Rs.4,00,000/-, which on presentation was dishonoured for ‘funds insufficient’ in the account of accused and the same was intimated to the complainant vide cheque return memo dated.03.05.2017. Hence, the complainant immediately

C.A.No.46/2023 3 Draft Judgment issued legal notice, datd.15.05.2017, which was refused to received by accused. Hence, under the above circumstances the complainant has filed complaint against the appellant/ accused alleging of he committing offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence, the complaint.

3.Before the trial court, basing on the sworn affidavit of complainant, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act, against the accused and process was issued.

The accused / appellant on receipt of notice made his appearance before the court, copies were furnished to him under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C., and when he was examined under Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, he having understood the same pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. On behalf of the complainant, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined,

Ex.P1 to P5 were marked. On completion of complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C, who having understood the incriminating material available against him, being explained to him, denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Thereupon, the trial court on hearing both parties, passed it’s judgment on 03.01.2023 by holding the appellant/ accused guilty for the offence under Sec. 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act.

C.A.No.46/2023 4 Draft Judgment

5.It is aggrieved by the said judgment that appellant/ Accused approached this court by way of present appeal.

6.Coming before this court no additional evidence in any form was adduced.

7. However, while the matter was coming for hearing, at request of the parties the matter was referred to mediation for settlement. The parties made appearance before the mediator/D.Satyanarayana on 16.04.2026, and the matter was settled, on certain terms.

8.The terms are as follows:

[i] Both the parties discussed the matter and have mutually agreed for a settlement @ Rs.2,00,000/-.

[ii] The appellant has paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent.

[iii] Both the parties have agreed that this is a full and final settlement.

9.In the result, in view of the said settlement, the appeal is allowed setting aside the Judgment passed by the learned Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Anaparthi in CC No.327/2017 on 03.01.2023,

and consequently, the conviction and sentence recorded thereunder against the appellant/ accused is set aside. Accordingly, the appellant/ accused is acquitted under Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence under

Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stand discharged/ cancelled after expiry of six months from today as per Sec. 437 of Cr.P.C. Typed to Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23 rd day of April, 2026.

III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada. (FAC) XIII Additional Sessions Judge,

C.A.No.46/2023 5 Draft Judgment

Ramachandrapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

III A.S.J

FAC/XII ASJ, Ramachandrapuram.

Copy to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthi.

C.A.No.46/2023 6 Draft Judgment // TRUE COPY //

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada

C.A.No.46/2023 7 Draft Judgment

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Today i.e., 03.11.2025 judgment pronounced in CA 173/2025 on the file of Hon’ble III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kakinada, and the

Appellant /accused No.1 is received the judgment copies in this case.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Today i.e., 03.11.2025 judgment pronounced in CA 173/2025 on the file of Hon’ble III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kakinada, and the

Appellant /accused No.1 is received the judgment copies in this case.

C.A.No.46/2023 8 Draft Judgment n view of the admitted existence of civil disputes between the accused and the complainant’s family, reliance upon the sole testimony of the brothers and their father— who merely assert they were assaulted by the accused, without delineating the specific circumstances of the alleged attack—remains unconvincing. The potential for false implication cannot be discounted, especially considering the criminal proceedings already initiated by the accused against the complainant and the acknowledged civil litigation pending between the parties. Additionally, the prosecution’s case is rendered suspect by the conspicuous absence of examination of the only independent witness alleged to have observed the incident, juxtaposed with the examination of a person who was not present at the scene but purportedly testified about the occurrence.

Furthermore, a notable lack of consistency emerges in the evidence of prosecution witnesses 1 to 3 concerning the motive for the dispute. According to the brothers, the altercation was triggered by the accused’s apprehension that the witnesses in the related criminal case would testify in favour of the complainant, whereas their father (PW3) asserted that the disagreement stemmed from a land dispute. Such fundamental inconsistencies undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative and cast significant doubt upon the alleged motive for the accused’s purported assault.