CC.No.544/2018 1 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE I I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
VIJAYAWADA.
Present: - Smt.G.Devika,
I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vijayawada.
FAC/II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vijayawada.
Thursday, this the 11 th day of September, 2025
C.C.No.544 /2018
Between:
Aemireddy Srinivasa Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o Rama Mohana Reddy, aged about 41 years, Business, R/o D.no.32-13/2-2/1, Atluri Paramatma Street, Near Sivalayam, Mogalrajpuram, Vijayawada.. . . Complainant.
Vs.
P.Samson, S/o Dhyryanandam, aged about 45 years, Business, R/o D.no.24-18-47, Near Sarabhaya Temple, Durgapuram,Gandhinagar Post, Vijayawada.
..... Accused.
This case is coming on 18.08.2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of learned advocate Sri M.Ramnadh, Advocate for Complainant and Sri M a t h i S y a m , Advocate for the accused, upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The Complainant filed the Complaint against the accused for the offence under Section 138 & 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act as the cheque issued by the accused for Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant and the same was dishonoured and the accused did not pay the legally enforceable debt.
2. The brief facts of the case of the complaint are as follows:--
The Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-( Rupees Ten Lakhs only) from the complainant on 22.02.2016 for his family and business expenses and executed a promissory note on the same day promising to
CC.No.544/2018 2 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 repay the amount with interest @ 24% per annum either to the complainant or his order on demand. Subsequently, the accused issued a cheque bearing
No.000037, drawn on Kotak Mahendra Bank, Governor Pet Branch,
Vijayawada for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-( Rupees Eight Lakhs only) on 12.06.2017 towards part payment of the debt. The complainant presented the cheque for collection through his banker State Bank of India, Prajasakthi
Nagar Branch, Vijayawada and the cheque got returned with an endorsement ‘’Payment Stopped by the Drawer” on 15.06.2017. The complainant then got issued a legal notice to the Accused on 06.07.2017 through his counsel to the Accused by registered post, The accused received the said notice on 07.07.2017 and gave a reply through his counsel with all false and baseless allegations on 04.08.2017. The Accused did not choose to pay the cheque amount even after statutory period expired. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint.
3.After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the complaint was taken cognizance under Section 138 & 142 of Negotiable
Instruments Act against the accused.
4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated u/S 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined u/S 251 Cr.P.C for the offence u/Sec.138 & 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act he denied the offence and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
CC.No.544/2018 3 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 5. On behalf of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as
PW.1, P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex P6.
6.After closure of the complainant side evidence, the accused was examined u/S 313 Cr.P.C putting the incriminating material against him and he denied the same.
7.Heard the arguments from both sides.
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all the reasonable doubt that the accused has issued a cheque bearing number :000037 for sum of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on 12.06.2017 from kotak Mahendra Bank, governor Pet Branch,
Vijayawada when the complainant presented the cheque for encashment the cheque was dishonoured due to “Insufficient fund” for which the complainant issued a legal notice and same was served, but the accused has not repay the said amount and thereby the accused has committed offence, punishable under sec.138 NI Act.
1. What order: My answer's to the above points are as follows: Point No.1: In the Negative
2. No.2: As per final order for the following : Reasons
8. Point:
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.138 of N.I. Act, it is for the complainant to prove that the accused issued a cheque in order to discharge legally existing debt and it was
CC.No.544/2018 4 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 returned by the accused banker for insufficient funds to honor the cheque and thereby, the accused committed an offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
9.P.W.1 who is complainant deposes in chief examination that on 22.02.2016, accused borrowed an amount of 10,00,000/- from him for family� and business necessity executing a promissory note in his favor agreeing to repay the borrowed amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
Promissory note is exhibited as Ex.P.1. Later, on making several demands by
P.W.1, accused issued cheque bearing No.000037 for � 8,00,000/- dated 12.06.2017 towards discharge of part payment of promissory note due amount with interest drawn on Kotak Mahendra Bank, Governorpet Branch,
Vijayawada in favor of complainant, which on presentation in the State Bank of
India, Prajasakthi Nagar Branch, Vijayawada on 15.06.2017 got dishonored with endorsement “Payment stopped by the drawer” by the drawer on 15.06.2017 Cheque returned memo from State Bank of India, Prajasakthi
Nagar Branch, Vijayawada.
10.P.W.1 further deposes that on 06.07.2017 he got issued legal notice to accused calling upon him to pay the amount covered under dishonored cheque, within 15 days from receipt of notice. The notice was received by accused on 07.07.2017. However, accused got issued reply
Notice on 04.08.2017 which is not marked as exhibit. Office copy of legal notice is marked as Ex.P.4 and postal acknowledgment is exhibited as Ex.P.6.
CC.No.544/2018 5 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 11.In cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, P.W.1 deposes that he is doing real estate business and also he is a Civil Contractor in the name of Aneesh Infra. He admitted that he lent money for interest in his friends circle. He denied the suggestion that he had filed nearly 50 complaints under Section 138 NI Act and also the Civil suit for recovery of money in various courts at Vijayawada. PW.1 submitted that he filed only 10 to 15 cases. He further stated that there is no other proof to show that Ex.P.2 was issued to discharge the debt said to have due under Ex.P.1. He added that he has drawn Rs.10,00,000/- from Andhra Bank, Moghalrajpuram Branch on the date of Ex.P.1 in order to give the amount to the accused. One M.Raju is the scribe of Ex.P.1 and M.Srinivas and another personal who is a lecturer signed as attestors in Ex.P.1. He admitted that the scribe of Ex.P.1 acted as a scribe in 2 to 3 pronote transactions. He stated that the accused issued Ex.P.2 on 12.06.2017 and he himself brought the filled up the cheque and subscribed his signature on infront of PW.1. He denied the suggestion that the signature appearing on Ex.P.2 does not belongs to the accused and it was forged. He admitted that accused got issued reply to Ex.P.4 and he know the contents of reply notice, as per the reply notice, accused gave the cheques and promissory notes and stamp paper worth of Rs.100/- to his partner Ramana
Rao and the same are used by PW.1. He denied the suggestion that taking the advantage of the promissory note and blank cheque which do not contain the signature the accused, they are fabricated by them and forged the
CC.No.544/2018 6 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 signature of accused on Ex.P.1 and filed this complaint. He denied the suggestion that the complaint is not maintainable since accused had given instructions to the bank for stop payment, as the blank cheques were given to his partner with an apprehension that may be presented for collection. PW.1 admitted that the said V.V.Ramana filed complaints under Section 138 NI Act in various courts at Vijayawada. V.V.Ramana is the partner of the accused. He denied the suggestion that in view of the dispute cropped up in between the accused and his partner V.V.Ramana as the empty promissory note which contained the signature of the accused and the cheque which does not contain the signature of the accused were available with him, the signature of the accused is forged on Ex.P.2 and filed this complaint through Pw.1. He denied the suggestion that he has no financial capacity and that he has habit of depositing Rs.10,00,000/- in his account and withdraw the same on the date of lending money to the borrowers with a view that it would be helpful to him as an evidence. He denied the suggestion that he has not chosen to file his account statement with an apprehension that the fact of date of depositing the amount and the date of withdrawal would be revealed.
12. PW.1 is recalled as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.7/2024 date 11.01.2024.
PW.1 stated that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that on 22.02.2016 he had cash of Rs.10,00,000/-. He stated that he has lend the amount to P.Samson in individual capacity and he do not remember whether he has shown J.M.M.J contractors as party. PW.1 again stated that he has
CC.No.544/2018 7 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 document to show that he lend the amount to J.M.M.J contractors and he failed to file the said documents to the court. He denied the suggestion that he filed this case against the accused as benomy of V.V.Ramana Rao and due to that reason, PW.1 unable to say anything about the case and in order to help V.v.Ramana Rao, he is giving evidence only to have wrongful gain from the accused. He admitted that he did not file Civil Suit against the accused for recovery of alleged amount of Rs.10,00,000/- covered under Ex.P.2 cheque.
13. The complainant has made an application under Section 311 of Cr.PC seeking to reopen the case and permit him to examine the scribe and attesros of Ex.P.1 promissory note as witnesses, in the result, though the Hon’ble court allowed the petition permitting the complainant to adduce further evidence subject to condition that the petitioner shall produce all the witnesses at once for the purpose of cross-examination. Though the petition was allowed complainant did not choose to produce witnesses as per his application.
Similarly the complainant has filed the petition under Section 311 Cr.PC to recall complainant to receive documents. Wherein the Hon’ble Court dismissed Crl.M.P.No.968/2024 as there is no purpose to allow the petition. In the petition Crl.M.P.968/2024 the Hon’ble Court has dismissed the petition on merits stating that on perusal of bank statement, the petitioner/complainant in this petition did not specifically shown about the alleged Ex.P.1 transaction to connect bank passbook filed by him. Secondly the Lok Adalat award intend to be filed by the petitioner is of 2019. As such, the petitioner/complainant either
CC.No.544/2018 8 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 in his complaint or his chief examination evidence, had not stated about the bank passbook and Lok Adalat Award. Thus, the Hon’ble Court has dismissed the petition.
14.On 07.01.2022 PW.1 has filed chief affidavit of PW.2/M.Venu Gopala
Rao who is the second attestor of the promissory note and submitted that the accused borrowed the consideration amount on 22.02.2016 in the presence of
M.Srinivasa Rao another attesotor and M.Raju as scribe of the above said promissory note. Except merely filing of the chief affidavit of PW.2, Pw.1 did not produce PW.2 to adduce evidence, thus on 13.05.2025 the evidence of
PW.2 was closed. The complainant has filed the reply notice got issued by the
Advocate dated 04.08.2017 but the said document was not marked as Exhibit.
15.The learned counsel for complainant argued that though accused in his
Sec.313 Cr.P.C (Criminal Procedure Code) examination, the accused is given an opportunity to explain any incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them, without need to take an oath. This examination allowed the accused to offer his own version of events and tried to clarify any discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence. The court's purpose in this examination is to ensure a fair trial and that the accused has been given an opportunity to be heard, and he did not produce himself as witness. He further argued that from the evidence of P.W.1 clubbed with Ex.P.1 to P.6, offence
CC.No.544/2018 9 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 u/sec 138 NI Act is made out against accused. Hence, he prays to convict accused and sentence him accordingly.
16.The learned counsel for accused submitted that written arguments that the complainant filed the above complaint against the accused under
Section 138 of NI Act on the basis of alleged cheque, which is not enforceable under Law. The learned counsel further submitted that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity that he can lend Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused.
As such, the complainant has not filed any documentary proof to show that he was in possession of Rs.10,00,000/-. He also argued that complainant has not stated whether he has shown the said amount in his income tax returns. And also the PW.1 did not choose to file any peace of paper to show that the said amount is accounted money. Thus, the money will be treated as UN-accounted money. The counsel also submitted that PW.1 has no personal knowledge about this case and only to help V.V.Ramana Rao is giving evidence to get wrongful gain.
17.During the cross-examination of Pw.1, Pw.1 himself admitted that he passed the consideration in the individual capacity but the cheque issued on behalf of the firm ie., J.M.MJ Contractors, thus, there is no legally enforceable debt between the complainant and the accused. The defence counsel also argued that complainant is the benomy of one V.V.Ramana. PW.1 fabricated the pronote and cheque by colluding with V.V.Ramana Rao and other relatives, with false baseless allegations. That PW.1 failed to examine any other witness
CC.No.544/2018 10 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 thus, there were no corroborative evidence on behalf of the complainant, thus burden heavily lies on the complainant to prove his case, as he failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt, benefit of doubt always goes to the accused.
18. MEMO OF CITATIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED
1) 2019 (2) ALT (Crl) 1 (SC) Crl. Appeal No.636 of 2019 “Basalingappa Vs
Mudibasappa” dated 09.04.2019
2) A.I.R. 2008 SC.1325 “ Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.hegde: in para No.19
3) 2004 Crl.L.J. 4107 (SC) “Nagisetty Nagaiah Vs State of A.P. and another”.
4) 2006 (3) Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 30 “M.S.Narayana Menon Alias Mani
Vs. State of Keral and another”
5) 2015 (1) Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 576”K.Subramani Vs K. Damodara
Naidu”
6) 2023 Live Law SC 46 Criminal Appeal No.1978/2013 Judgment
Dt.18.01.2023 “Rajaram Vs Maruthachalam”.
7) 2017 (4) ALT 488”R.Chennakesava Rao Vs.P.lakshmi Narasaiah and another”
8) 2002 (9) Supreme Court Cases 415 “Shakti Travel &Tours Vs State of Bihar and another”.
9) 2017 (2) DCR Madras High Court “Venture Softech India Private Limited &
Anr Vs.Starup experts”.
CC.No.544/2018 11 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025
10) CRM-M-54111-2021 High Coourt of Punjab & Haryana At chandigarh “Sardar Bhupinder singh Vs M/s.Green Feeds Through its partner Vipin
Kumar”.
11) 2015 (2) ALD 510 “Vallabhaneni Srinivas Rao Vs.mangalapadu
Venkateswaru and another”.
19.Defence counsel also contended that the complainant has not proved legally enforceable debt of the accused. Though the reply notice issued by the accused was not marked as exhibit, the accused in his reply notice stated that he has no necessity to the said amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant. He further contended that while he was acting as builder along with V.Venkata Ramana Rao, he had issued two empty cheques bearing
No.000037 dated 12.06.2017 drawn on Kotak Mahendra Bank, Governorpet
Branch, Vijayawada and another cheque bearing No.321281 dated 03.07.2017 drawn on State Bank of India, Satyanarayanapuram Branch, Vijayawada and two blank signed promissory note, one blank non judicial stamp paper worth
Rs.100/- and two empty conquest papers for the purpose of security and surety to the land owners. Above said documents are in the custody of
V.Venkata Ramana and with malafide intention he did not return the said documents to the accused and the cheques and promissory notes are given to the complainant for unlawful gain.
20.From the evidence it has to be proved that the accused issued a blank cheque to the complainant at the time of borrowing Rs.10,00,000/- from PW.1.
CC.No.544/2018 12 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025
More over the legal notice was served upon the accused. That the complainant did not file any document to prove that he was having 10 lakhs on the date of transaction and did not reflect this transaction in In come Tax
Returns. The complainant has to see the repaying capacity of the accused that too when he was lending huge money to him.
21.However, defence counsel did not try to adduce evidence to support his claim. The complainant counsel tried to prove with the help of documentary evidence like the bank passbook of his wife’s account and the award passed during Lok Adalat, that the complainant has withdrawn Rs.10
Lakhs on the date of Ex.P.1. But the Hon’ble Court did not considered the documents as evidence. Thus, there is no necessity to discuss about the said documents. Though the accused did not enter into the witness box to adduce his evidence, but he took the defence that he never issued cheque or promissory note to the complainant and also took the defence that the promissory note and blank cheques are fabricated and are filed in this complaint by forging the signature of the accused on Ex.P.2. He also took the defence that he instructed the bank officials to stop payments on the presentation of blank cheques. This defence is proved with Ex.P.3. Thus, such contention of defence counsel holds water.
22.Upon perusal of deposition of P.W.1, exhibits marked and hearing the defence of accused, I found that there is no dispute that the complainant as well as accused are well acquainted with each other. Further, accused has
CC.No.544/2018 13 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 disputed executing cheque and promissory Note and also denied his signature on Ex P1 and his defence is that he never borrowed any amount from the complainant and that his cheques and promissory notes were received by
V.V.Ramana Rao who is none other than the partner of the accused. Pw.1 admitted that V.V.Ramana is the partner of the accused. Though the complainant has agreed to file his bank account statements to prove his financial capacity, he never made any attempt to file the said documents to rebut the contention of the accused.
23.The complainant failed to examine the attestors, Scribe of the promissory note.
24.Accused did not deny his signature on cheque in question but he stated that he gave his cheques and promissory notes as security to the
V.V.Ramana and that he never borrowed the amount from complainant.
Accused contended, the complainant has filled up the cheque and filed this false complaint against him. Pw.1 also admitted that he has habit of lending amounts for interest in his friend circles, that he filed 10 to 15 cases in different courts under NI Act.
25.As can be seen from evidence, accused has admitted his signature on cheque and promissory note, the presumption under section 139
N.I. Act would come into play to show that there exist legally enforceable debt and the cheque was issued in discharge of the same by accused. Now it is for the accused to rebut such presumption.
CC.No.544/2018 14 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 26.As per the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G. Hegde reported in 2008 AIR
SCW 738 wherein it was held that:- “An accused for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute need not examine himself. He may discharge his burden on the basis of the material already brought on record.
An accused has a constitutional right to maintain silence. Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different.” 27.In another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in
Rangappa Vs Mohan reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1898 wherein it was observed that: “It is settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act, the standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities.' Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail.” Thus, from the above settled principles, it can be seen that standard of proof for rebutting presumption u/sec 139 NI Act by accused is by way of preponderance of probabilities and is lighter that that of prosecution.
28.The accused has elicited that one V.V.Ramana was his partner while he acted as builder, that the cheques, promissory notes, blank stamp papers were issued by him to V.V.Ramana for security purpose. The defense counsel also elicited that PW.1 does money lending business, therefore he
CC.No.544/2018 15 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 filed several NI Act cases against other people also. More over complainant could not prove his financial capability to lend such huge amount. Even after issuing reply notice the accused failed to arrange oral documentary evidence to support his contents in the chief affidavit. Where as the accused had tried to convince the court that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity and also the complainant could not produce the scribe and attestors to adduce their evidence, to corroborate his evidence. The accused tried to defend himself, that he gave instructions to the bank authorities for stop payment on the blank cheques when presented in the bank. This was proved through
Ex.P.4. which implies that the accused took precautionary measure and cautioned bank authority to stop the payments. It is crystal clear that the accused has knowledge that the blank cheques may be presented in the bank.
Though the reply notice was not marked but the contents of the reply notice and the defence took by the accused during the cross-examination of PW.1, well matches with the contentions of the accused. It implies that the accused had made an attempt to rebut the presumption under NI Act cases. Thus, the burden of proof shifts on to the complainant.
29. To discard the defence of accused, learned counsel for complainant could not file any sort of Documents or could not produce any witness to corroborate his evidence. Complainant could not explain how he could arrange such huge amount in order to pass consideration.
CC.No.544/2018 16 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 30. Further, on perusal of promissory note i.e. Ex.P.1, I found it to be executed by accused. But the defense of accused is that Ex.P.1 was not executed in favour of PW.1. Even if it is believed that accused has taken a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from complainant by executing Ex.P.1, it is for the complainant to produce relevant documents in support of the source for advancing such amount to accused as observed by Honorable Supreme Court in John K Abraham vs Simon C Abraham reported in (2014) 2 SCC 236.
However, complainant has not produced any document to show his source of income for lending an amount of 10,00,000/- to accused. �
31.Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat V.
Dattatraya G.Hegde reported in 2008 (2) ALT (Crl.) 170 (SC) rendered that :- “Any advance taken by way of any loan of more than 20,000/- was to� be made by way of an account payee cheque only as per Section 269-SS of
Income Tax Act.” But in the case on hand, complainant has not issued any account payee cheque to accused for advancing loan. The complainant could not produce bank statement or statement of account, to show such advancement of money to accused. Thus, it appears from above observations that accused not executed blank promissory note while taking loan of �10,00,000/- .
32.So far as the defense of accused is concerned that he gave signed empty blank cheques and promissory notes and Bond papers to
V.V.Ramana who is a friend of complainant as security and he never indebted
CC.No.544/2018 17 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 to the complainant and never borrowed any amount from him. As rightly argued, upon perusal of cheque, I found that there is difference of ink used for signature of drawer and other materials. It is not the case of complainant either in his complaint or testimony that details on cheque were written by someone else on behalf of accused at the time of receiving the cheque.
Further, upon perusal of cross-examination of P.W.1, I found him to testify that he could not remember the name of the 2nd attestor and he admitted that he gave several amounts to different people and filed 10 to 15 NI Act cases. The complainant has filed the present NI Act as benomy for V.V.Ramana.
33. Considering the defence of accused as to signing a blank cheque and blank promissory notes which are given for security purpose during his business, in which V.V.Ramana is one of the partner. The accused can rely upon the submissions made by the complainant and he need not file any documents to prove his defence. I am of view that complainant/prosecution has created an amount of doubt in the mind of court that accused issued signed blank cheque or not for discharge of any liability. Now the question is whether a signed blank cheque which was kept with V.V.Ramana contending that it was given for security purpose comes under purview of S.138 N.I. Act or
Not.
34. Further, in M/s. Avon Organics Ltd., Vs. M/s. Pioneer Products
Limited and others reported in 2004(1) ALT (Crl.) 90 (AP) wherein it was held that --“The complainant filled up the amount portion in words and figures
CC.No.544/2018 18 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 and put the date as per his own choice which amounts to material alteration.
Blank cheque cannot be enforced even if issued for legal necessity.
Accused did not consent to fill up the particular amount in words and figures when it is not a cheque and on its dishonor, the accused cannot be said to have been committed an offence.” 35.Thus, from the observations made by Honorable High Court supra, I am of considerable view that the impugned cheque, which was issued by accused, does not comes under the purview of Sec.138 N.I. Act.
Therefore, drawer of cheque i.e. accused cannot be held liable u/sec 138 NI
Act for dishonor of signed blank cheque.
36.Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, I hold that the complainant failed to establish that the accused had borrowed a sum of 10,00,000/- from him and the accused� had issued cheque for discharging any existing liability. Further, complainant could not prove the source of advancing an amount of �10,00,000/- to accused. Moreover, the complainant contravened the provision under Section 269-SS of Income Tax Act by advancing sum of 10,00,000/- to the accused� by way of cash. Further, it appears that complainant has materially altered the cheque issued by accused for some other purposes by filling it with an amount of 10,00,000/- without consent of the drawer-accused. Therefore, it cannot be� said that the complainant/prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the
CC.No.544/2018 19 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 accused beyond all reasonable doubts and as such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
37.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act and he is acquitted under section 255(1)
Cr.P.C. The The Bail bonds of the accused shall be inforce for six months
U/s.437A Cr.P.C. and thereafter shall stands canceled.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 11 th day of September, 2025.
I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate FAC/II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Vijayawada.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR COMPLAINANT
PW.1: Allu Ankamma Reddy
PW.2: Makke Venugopala Rao
FOR DEFENCE : NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED.
FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1: Original promissory note dated 22.02.2016
Ex.P.2: Original cheque bearing No.000037 dated 12.06.2017.
Ex.P.3: Cheque return memo dated 15.06.2017
Ex.P.4: Office copy of the registered notice dated 05.07.2017
Ex.P.5: Postal receipt dated 06.07.2017.
Ex.P.6: Postal acknowledgment dated 07.07.2017.
CC.No.544/2018 20 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate FAC/II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Vijayawada.
CALENDAR
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA
C.C.No.544/2018.
Date of Offence : 21.07.2017.
Date of Report of Complaint: 21.08.2017.
Date of commencement of trial: 27.03.2019.
Date of Closure of trial: 26.09.2024.
Date of Sentence of Order: 11.09.2025.
Address and particulars of complainant: Aemireddy Srinivasa Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o Rama Mohana Reddy, aged about 41 years, Business, R/o D.no.32-13/2-2/1, Atluri Paramatma Street, Near Sivalayam, Mogalrajpuram, Vijayawada.
Address and particulars of accused: P.Samson, S/o Dhyryanandam, aged about 45 years, Business, R/o D.no.24-18-47, Near Sarabhaya Temple, Durgapuram,Gandhinagar Post, Vijayawada.
Offence : Under Section 138 of NI Act. Plea of accused : pleaded not guilty. Finding : Not Guilty
Sentence:
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act and he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The The Bail bonds of the accused shall be inforce for six months U/s.437A Cr.P.C. and thereafter shall stands canceled.
I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate FAC/II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Vijayawada. Copies submitted to:
1. The Hon’ble II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.
CC.No.544/2018 22 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025 -// True Copy //- II Addl. Judicial Magistrate, of First Class,Vijayawada.
CC.No.544/2018 23 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE : VIJAYAWADA
Present : Smt.G.Devika
I Addl. J.M.F.C Magistrate, Vijayawada. FAC/II Addl. J.M.F.C Magistrate, Vijayawada. Thursday, the 28th day of August, 2025.
C.C. No.544/2018.
Date of Offence : 21.07.2017.
Date of Report of Complaint: 21.08.2017.
Date of commencement of trial: 27.03.2019.
Date of Closure of trial: 26.09.2024.
Date of Sentence of Order: 11.09.2025.
Address and particulars of complainant: Aemireddy Srinivasa Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o Rama Mohana Reddy, aged about 41 years, Business, R/o D.no.32-13/2-2/1, Atluri Paramatma Street, Near Sivalayam, Mogalrajpuram, Vijayawada.
Address and particulars of accused: P.Samson, S/o Dhyryanandam, aged about 45 years, Business, R/o D.no.24- 18-47, Near Sarabhaya Temple, Durgapuram,Gandhinagar Post, Vijayawada.
Offence : Under Section 138 of NI Act. Plea of accused : pleaded not guilty. Finding : Guilty
Sentence:
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act and she is acquitted under section 255(1)
Cr.P.C. The The Bail bonds of the accused shall be inforce for six months
U/s.437A Cr.P.C. and thereafter shall stands canceled.
I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Vijayawada. Copies submitted to:
CC.No.544/2018 24 II AJMFC,VJA.
Dt.11.09.2025
1. The Hon’ble II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.