APCH080012542022 1
IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM
IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TIRUPATI
PRESENT: Sri G. Srinivas, IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Tirupati
Thursday, this 19th day of February, 2026
C.C. No. 1459 OF 202 3
Between: T.S.Mohan Reddy, S/o TVenkata Reddy, Hindu, aged about 59 years, residing at D.No.8-67/1, Srinagar Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor District, …. Complainant And: G.Munirajamma, W/o Late G.Nagaraju, Hindu, aged about 55 years, residing at D.No.6-24 (Old D.No.6-14), Church Street, Chandragiri, Chittoor District
….. Accused.
This case is coming before me on this day i.e on 20.01.2026for hearing in the presence of Smt M. Vani, Sri P. Muralikrishna Reddy, Advocates for Complainant and Sri R. Govindarajulu, Advocate for accused,upon hearing, upon perusing the material on record, and this matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against accused for the offence punishable under section 138 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act praying this court to punish the accused.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are:
2
i) The Complainant humbly submits, the the accused borrowed a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs only) from complainant on 30.05.2019 for her family necessities and on the same day the accused executed a demand promissory note in favour of the complainant, by promising to repay the said sum with interest @24% p.a. on demand or order of the complainant.
ii) It is submitted that subsequently the accused failed to make any payment towards the discharge of the above said debt, either towards
principal or interest and the complainant had been demanding the accused to
make such payment and the accused had been postponing the same on some ground or the other.
iii) It is submitted that upon such repeated demands of the complainant, the accused offered to make part payment of Rs.5,00,000/-to the complainant towards the outstanding dues payable by the accused to the complainant based on the aforesaid promissory note transaction and issued a cheque for
Rs.5,00,000/- (Cheque No.393761) drawn on State Bank of India, Govindaraja
Swamy Temple Branch, Tirupati from the accused's account bearing No.
10567893471 on 19.07.2021 and requested the complainant to present the same for collection on that day itself. That believing the accused version, the complainant received the said cheque and presented the same into his bank, ie. Union Bank of India, S.V.O.C. Branch, K.T.Road, Tirupati, within the limits of Alipiri Police Station but it was dishonored and such dishonor was intimated to the complainant through a return memo dt.23.07.2021 with an endorsement as "exceeds arrangement".
iv) It is submitted that subsequently, the complainant had been trying to contact the accused to question her about such dishonor but the accused had been evading the complainant and on top of that, the accused started threatening and abusing the complainant with dire consequences and having no other option the complainant got issued a statutory notice to the accused 3 on 26.07.2021 and the same was acknowledged by her on 29.07.2021 but he neither complied nor gave any reply to the said notice. That having no other option, the complainant has preferred this private compliant.
v) It is submitted that the accused gave the above said cheque to complainant and requested him to present the same inspite of knowing fully well that have no sufficient funds in her account and moreover it exceeds the arrangement, only with an intent to deceive and defraud the complainant and harass him. Hence the accused is punishable under Sec. 138 & 142 of N.1.
Act.
3. This court took cognizance of offence under section 190 (1) (a) r/w 2
(d) of Cr.P.C. and Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against accused and issued summons.
4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to accused as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5. On further appearance of accused, he was examined under section 251 of IPC by explaining the accusation for the offence punishable under section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for which, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.
6. To substantiate the case of complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW1 and PW2 got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 documents.
7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence deposed against him by the prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on her behalf.
8. Heard both sides, perused the material on record.
4
9. Now the point for determination is that, “Whether the complainant is proved the offence punishable under section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against accused beyond reasonable doubt?
10.POINT:
Before analyzing the point for determination, it is necessary to keep in
mind the well recognized Law and predominant requirements to attract the offence is that, in a case filed under Negotiable Instruments Act and in a case relating to dishonour of cheque, the initial burden of proving the case casts upon the complainant by proving that the cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt or other liability and the said cheque was dishonoured for the reasons mentioned by the bank officials such as insufficiency of balance, stop payment, exceeding funds, account closed etc., Apart from that, the accused is at liberty to rebut the case of complainant as per the principles of preponderance of probabilities. Accused need not prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is also well settled principle of Law that if in case, the accused admits his signature in cheque, then, the complainant is entitled to utilize the presumptions available as per the facts of the each case in regard to provisions under sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accordingly, the complainant has to establish his case in order to succeed his contention.
11. Before adjudicating the matter, the court feels it is necessary to consider the legal proposition established by the Hon’ble Apex Court through various Judgments in a case relating to offences under dishonour of cheque, following are few landmark judgments.
i) Basalingappa Vs. Mudi Basappa reported in 2009 (5) SCC 418 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held about the drawing of presumption under section 118, 138 and 139 of N.I Act and how said presumptions can be rebutted, standard of proof and while prosecution must establish its case 5 beyond reasonable doubt accused to prove a defence must only made standard of preponderance of probabilities and principles summarized.
“In Para No.14 the Hon’ble Apex court held the meaning of the expression “may Presume” and “Shall Presume” have been explained in section 4 of the Evidence Act, 1872 from a perusal whether it would be evident that when there it is directed that the court shall Presume a fact, it shall record such fact as proved unless disproved. In terms of the said provision, thus, the expression “shall presume” cannot be held to be synonymous with conclusive proof.
ii. The Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon M.S. NARAYAN MENON Vs.
STATE OF KERALA (2006) 6 SCC 39; (2006) 3 SCC (cri) 30 relied on
Union of India Vs. Promod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 1, cited “Applica” the said definitions of “Proved” or “disproved” to the principle behind section 118(a) of the Act, the Court shall presume a negotiable instrument to be for consideration unless and until after considering the material to be it, it either believes that the consideration does not exist. For rebutting said presumption what is needed is to raise a probable defence. Even for the said purpose,the evidence adduced on behalf of complainant could be relied upon. Whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of accused is “Preponderance of Probabilities”, inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which accused relies.
iii.M.S.NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA (2006) 6 SCC 39;
(2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 30l Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G.Hegde
(2008) 4 SCC 54; (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 166, relied on “Applying the definition of the word “Proved” in section 3 of the Evidence Act to the provisions of sections 118 and 139 of of the Act, it becomes evidence that in a trial under 6 section 138 of the Act a presumption will have to be made that every
Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that it was executed for discharge of debt or liability. Once the execution of Negotiable
Instrument is either proved or admitted. As soon as the complainant discharges the burden to prove that instrument, or a note, was executed by the accused, the rules of presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the act holds him, shift the burden on the accused. The presumptions will alive, exist and survive and so end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability. A presumption is not in itself evidence, but, only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists.
iv. Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513; (2009)
1 SCC (Civ) 629; (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 823, relied on - The use of the phrase “until the contrary is proved” in Section 118 of the act and use of the words “unless the contrary is proved” in Sections 139 of the Act read with definitions of “may presume” and “shall presume” as given in Section 4 of the Evidence act, makes it at once clear that presumptions to be raised under both the provisions are rebuttable. When a presumption is rebuttable, it only points out that the party on whom lies they duty of going forward with evidence, on the fact presumed and when that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed the purpose of the presumption is over. (Para 19).
The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial 7 of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complaint. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. (para No.19).
Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. (Para 25.1)
The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities (para 25.2).
To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
(para 25.3).
It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, section 139 imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. (Para 25.4).
It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence (para 25.5.).
8 v. BHARATH BARREL Vs. AMIN CHAND PYARILAL 1999(3) SCC 35 (DB) held that if in case, the defendant does not prove that there was no consideration, then,plaintiff is not required to prove that thee was consideration for promissory note.
vi. KALAMANI TEX Vs. BALASUBRAMANYAM SLP (Cri) No.
1879/2018 Criminal Appeal No.123/2021 dated 10.02.2021 held that on blank cheques would attract presumption under section 139 of N.I Act if the signatures are admitted.
vii. KISHAN RAO Vs. SHANKAR Gowda: Crl.Appeal No. 803/2018 arising out of Spl. (Cri) No. 10030/2016 dated 02.07.2018 held that “Presumption available in favour of holder, accused may adduce evidence to rebut the presumption to merely denial regarding existence of debt shall not serve any purpose”.
viii N.K.JAIN Vs. ZAHID ALI AND ANOTHER reported in 2004 (91)
ALD (CRI) 2001, THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF A.P held that – Burden lies on the accused to rebut the presumption under N.I Act.
ix. PAVAN DILIP RAO DIKE Vs. VISHAL NARENDRA BAI PARMAR arising out of SLP (Cri) No. 3858/2019 dated 12.06.2019, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that - “heavy burden cannot be paced on complainant to prove the debt”.
x. SAMPALLY SATHYANARAYANA RAO Vs. INDIAN RENEWABLE
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED reported in 2016(2) ALD (Cri) 809; 2017(1) SCC (Cri) 149 held that – Discharge of debt or liability depends on nature of transaction and for rebuttable evidence mere statement of accused is not sufficient, but, he can rely on the material submitted by the complainant etc.,.
9 xi). RANGAPPA Vs. MOHAN reported in 2010(11) SCC 441 wherein it was held that - “when accused admitted his signature on cheque and when he did not raise probable defence and also failed to issue reply to statutory notice under section 138 of N.I Act and whereas complainant discloses the prima facie existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability entitled for relief, also explained presumption under section 139, rebuttable evidence and standard of proof.
12. To substantiate the case of complainant, himself examined as PW1 by filing chief affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. His chief affidavit is nothing but Witness called present, filed chief affidavit admitted contents of
Ex.P1 Dishnoured cheque bearing No.393761, dt. 19.07.2021 issued by the accused to him. Ex.P2/PW1 Cheque return memo issued by his banker,
Ex.P3/P.W1: Office copy of legal notice issued by him to accused, dt.26.07.2021, Ex.P4/P.W1: Acknowledgment card dt. 29.07.2021, Ex.P5 is the certified copy of promissory note dt 30.05.2019, (Ex P5 received in to record vide orders in CriMP No. 1294/2025, Ex.P6 is the certified copy of exparte decree in O.S.No. 793/2021 on the file of PDM court, Tirupati, or 23.02.2022. (Ex.P6 is received into record vide orders in CrIMP No.
dt.07.01.2026).
ii) During cross examination of PW1 deposed that his family members are his wife and two children. PW1 wife is housewife and his daughter is working as software engineer since 2021 and his son is practicing as doctor since 2015 and doing real estate business. PW1 do not have any firm or license to do real estate business and his annual income is Rs.6 to 7 lakhs. Apart from real estate business he is having agriculture income. PW1 have not filed any document to show that he is having agriculture land so also he is getting agricultural income and real estate business, he denied that since he do not have any income source, he have not filed such documents.
10
Iii) During further cross examination of PW1 he is having savings bank account at Union Bank of India, SVOC, KT road branch, Tirupati and is having bank transactions i.e., debits and credits, I am residing at Srinagar colony since 2010.
13. PW1 admitted that accused is native of Chandragiri. And he use to deposit his earning after utilizing his expenditure for which PW1 volunteers deposed that he used to deposit small amount only and not maintaining bank balance. He used to lent amount to accused in cash. PW1 have not fled any document to show that as on date of Ex.P1 he is having Rs.5,00,000/- cash in his hand. After filing of civil suit against accused, she issued ExP1 cheque but he do not remember whether he have mention the same in his complaint and chief affidavit. PW1 do not remember the date of filing of the suit. PW1 denied that he filed said civil suit on 29.07.2021 and accused never issued Ex. P1 cheque to him and also after accused issued the cheque the same was endorsed on back side of Ex P5 and further also denied that he do not remember whether his legal counsel endorsed on back side of Ex.P5 that there is no part payment and transfer endorsement. PW1 further denied that he had knowledge but deposing false. Accused issued cheque on 19.07.2021 but he have presented the same alter 2 days. On confrontation of Ex.P1, PW1 verified and stated that date of bank clearing seal is mentioned as "19.06.2021" and there is no clearing seal of bank on Ex.P1 by showing the date as 19.07.2021 or afterwards.
14. PW1 had savings bank at Union Bank of India, Sri Venkateswara
Oriental college branch, Tirupati. On confrontation of Ex.P2,PW1 verified and stated that bank seal is Ex.P2 showing Union Bank of India, TTD AD building.
For which PW1 deposed that both branch said Venkateswara oriental college branch was merged into TTD AD building branch. But he have not mention the same in his complaint and chief affidavit. Ex.P5 was executed before 11 afternoon around 10.00 a.m.PW1 denied that he have not deposed before the court that after filing of civil case, accused issued cheque to me to discharge the debt. For which PW1 voluntarily stated that it was mention in back side of said promissory note about issuance of cheque. PW1 admitted that he have not made any application for return of said promissory note/Ex.P5 in said case for the purpose of endorsing the same. PW1 is not an income tax assesse.
PW1 denied that accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- on dt.02.06.2016 and she repaid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on dt.16.12.2017 through account transfer on 19.12.2017 she transfer an amount of Rs.
20,000/- through account transfer and remaining amount by cash and on 19.12.2017 there is no due amount from accused, issued 2 signed promissory notes and 2 signed empty cheques on 02.06.2016 to PW1 towards security purpose for the said amount but he misutilized the same even though she repaid the same and foisted false case. And further denied that Ex.P1, P2 and
PW5 are created for the purpose of this case and there is no legal enforceable debt in this case and signatures of attestors to Ex.P5 are fabricated and also that accused never executed Ex.P5 on on 30.05.2019 but she was present on her duty at Renigunta. PW1 specifically denied that cheque issued endorsement on Ex.P5 is fabricated and since there is no issuance of cheque,
PW1’s legal counsel endorsed on back side of Ex.P5 as no part payment and transfer endorsement and same was not marked on my behalf.
15. PW1 specifically deposed that prior to Ex. P5 there are no financial transactions between himself and accused. PW1 denied that on 02.06.2016 accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3.50,000/- from him and issued 3 empty signed promissory notes towards security purpose but he misutilzed the same.
PW1 admitted that on 16.12.2017 an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was transferred from accused account to my account but he do not remember whether on 19.12.2017 an amount of Rs.20,000/- was transferred from accused account to his account or not and he misutilzed the security promissory note and 12 cheque and foisted false for wrongful gain and he never presented Ex.P1 cheque after 19.07.2021 for collection in his savings bank account. PW1 denied that he do not have capacity to lent huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, and accused never issued Ex.P1 cheque and never made any endorsement on 19.07.2021.
16. One of the attestor to Ex.P5 is examined as PW2, he deposed that
Ex.P5 transaction took place in his presence and also that accused issued cheque to PW1 in his presence through his chief affidavit. PW2 deposed during his cross examination that he studied upto Intermediate and he use to sign in similar manner since his conscious. On confrontation of Ex.P5 PW2 verified and deposed that signature bearing on it belongs to him as attestor.
PW2 read over the contents in his chief affidavit and signed in it and admitted that it is mention in his chief affidavit that "accused executed a demand promissory note in my favour, by promising to repay the said sum with interest". PW2 admitted that he had acquaintance with PW1 since 10 years.
Initially PW1 use to reside at back side of Leprosy hospital, Tirupati but he cannot say the door number and also his PW1's present address. PW1 is doing real estate business. PW2 had acquaintance with accused since 13 years. Accused is working in Panchayat, Renigunta. Ex.P5 executed at PW1 house at about 10.00 a.m. PW2 denied that he do not now anything about this case he was not present at the time of Ex.P5 transaction.
17.Pertaining to establishing legal enforceable debt in this case PW1 and PW2 are examined. The learned defence counsel vehemently argued that present cheque is not supported by legal enforceable debt and not supported by consideration. Hence, the present complaint has to be dismissed by acquitting the accused.
13
18.In view of the arguments submitted by learned defence counsel it is quite obvious to focus upon the judgment relied by learned counsel for defacto complainant:
19.Apart from the above discussed appreciation of evidence and judgments, it is pertinent to understand the relevant provisions of Law.
Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments reads as follows:
“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 14
(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”.
20.In present case on hand, the legally enforceable debt is by way of promissory note. The complainant must establish his case with evidence.
Therefore, the initial burden casts upon the complainant and he relied upon the documentary evidence and oral testimony of the complainant and attestor to promissory note.
ii.In the present case on hand, the accused nowhere denied that signature bearing on Ex. P1 cheque does not belongs to her. Since, the accused nowhere denied the signature on Ex. P1. PW1 is entitled to utilize the presumption envisaged under sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. By utilizing these principles, PW1 is entitled for prima facie case and prima facie discharges the initial burden casts upon him, but the initial burden as to establish legal enforceable debt remains as it is.
iii.As the PW1 is entitled for utilizing presumptions then the evidentiary burden shifts upon the accused to establish his defence.
According to the principles of rebuttable evidence i.e., preponderance of probabilities. The accused had taken several contentions which needs to be scrutinized in order to ascertain whether his defence falls under rebuttable evidence or not.
21. As a part and parcel of rebuttable evidence, the learned counsel for accused raised several contentions and it is the duty of the court to express opinion whether the defence evidence falls under the principles of rebuttable evidence or not. The learned defence counsel vehemently argued that the admissions made by PW1 is sufficient to dismiss the matter and argued that issuance of alleged Ex.P1 cheque is mentioned in back side of Ex.P5 promissory 15 note and according to PW1, accused issued Ex.P1 cheque after he filed a civil suit under Ex.P5 promissory note. Admittedly, PW1 have not filed any application for return of promissory note for such endorsement on the back side of Ex.P5 promissory note and further argued that there is no Bank seal on the back side of Ex.P1 showing PW1 presented the cheque on 26.07.2021 and finally argued that PW1 admitted before the Court that there are no other financial transactions between himself and accused, but during cross- examination, PW1 admitted that accused sent some amount to him. To corroborate the same, he filed a Bank Statement and finally argued that the self harming admissions made by PW1 is alone sufficient to adjudicate the matter by dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused.
22. In view of the arguments submitted by the defence counsel, the learned counsel for complainant replied that the P.W.1 filed civil suit basing upon promissory note and the accused issued cheque to P.W.1 prior to filing of said civil suit and endorsed the same on back side of promissory note and no application is filed before the court to return of Ex.P5 promissory note for the purpose of endorsement and basing on Ex.P5, the Hon’ble PDM Court, Tirupati passed an exparte decree and admitted that the accused preferred an application for set aside exparte decree in said OS. Finally, he argued that a simple admission that no prior financial transactions between PW1 and accused is not fatal to PW1’s case and complainant established all the essential ingredients including legal enforceable debt in this case. Hence, PW1 is entitled for the relief and accused is liable for punishment.
23. It is the one of the core contention of accused that PW1 filed civil suit basing on Ex.P5 promissory note prior to the issuance of Ex.P1 cheque and PW1 have not filed any application for return of promissory note for said purpose.
16
During cross-examination, PW1 was suggested to a question that he filed said civil suit prior to issuance of Ex.P1 cheque and also his counsel endorsed on the back side of said promissory note that there are no corrections and no part payment endorsements. Upon perusal of relevant material, it is true that said endorsement is not marked in this case, but only certified copy of promissory note is marked as Ex.P5. On the back side of Ex.P5 contains said endorsement as to part payment including cheque number, date of cheque and signature of accused. Accused have not produced any evidence to show that PW1 filed said civil suit prior to issuance of Ex.P1 date except suggestion and denial, there is no other material before the court, hence no adverse inference can be taken against against accused in this regard. Ex.P5 is filed before the Court and in general, without any application, it is not possible to say that court handovers any document to the party to make any endorsements, corrections or any other incorporation's. Unless there is strong evidence, the version of accused cannot be believed and the endorsement made on back side of Ex.P5 promissory note, presumes to be valid and genuine event hough it is not marked in this case.
Except mere allegation the accused do not have any other evidence to show that the civil suit is filed prior to the issuance of EX.P.1 cheque. Here one point to be strongly noted is that the accused contending that the accused made the endorsement on back side of promissory note after filing of civil suit.
Admittedly, no application for return promissory note for said endorsement.
Not as a general case but for sure the court would not return the document to any party for making such endorsements. The accused do not have any evidence to establish his contention. The authenticity and credibility of said endorsement is beyond suspicious. Therefore, the contention made by accused does not seems to be force and valid. Hence, need not be considered.
17
24. It is one of the contentions of the accused that Ex.P1 cheque does not contain the seal of the Bank to show that PW1 presented the cheque on 26.07.2021. When clearly observed the Ex.P1 cheque, this Court also does not found Bank seal on 26.07.2021, in this regard, this is the opinion of the court that non-appearance of Bank seal on Ex.P1 cheque on particular date of presentation is not a huge defect and fatal to the complainant’s case. Generally, what is required in complainant’s case in cheque dishonor case is cheque dishonor memo, but Bank seal is not mandatory. Cheque dishonor memo should be treated as prima-facie material as to dishonor of a cheque. The learned counsel for defence have not submitted any authority stating if the cheque does not contains Bank seal the offence of cheque dishonor under
Sec.138 of N.I. Act does not attracts. The contention raised by defence counsel is not supported with any settled principle of law. Finally, it is the opinion of the court in this regard that non-existence of Bank seal in back side of Ex.P1 is a mistake done by Bank and for the mistake done by the Bank, the rights of complainant cannot be prejudiced. More over the accused cannot plead those kind of technical defect of bank to escape from criminal libility. Said mistake is totally and purely a technical mistake done by bank and such defect is not in the hands of complainant . The crucial document in cheque dishonour cases is cheque return memo issued by the complainant bank. According to the section 146 of NI Act the cheque return memo shall be treated as primafacie evidence as to reason for dishonour of cheque. In the present case on hand it is not the defence of accused that cheque return memo is not genuine or fabricated or created one. In such circumstances the defence of accused cannot be taken as granted or proved. The defence raised by accused does not seems to be fair. In view of these reasons, it is the opinion of the court that the accused making mere allegations without any base and proof.
18
25. It is the final contention of the accused that PW1 deposed before the court that there are no prior financial transaction between PW1 and accused.
But during further cross-examination, PW1 admitted that accused made some payments to PW1 i.e. an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 16.12.2017.
When pursued the date in Ex.P5, it is mentioned as ‘30.05.2019’ that means the accused made said payment prior to Ex.P5. The statement of PW1 clearly establishes that he made two different version which are contradictory in nature about the payment made by accused and statement i.e. there are no prior financial transaction between them. This admission made by PW1 is not fatal to his case. Generally, a witness do not have photographic memory to depose each and every aspect before the court. If
PW1 denies about receipt of amount, then it would be against his conduct and veracity, but PW1 deposed before the court in continuation of his cross- examination that he received amount from the accused on so and so date.
Said repayment date and Ex.P5 promissory note date are different. Said repayment is prior to Ex.P5 date. There is no hesitation to say that the present case transaction and admitted transaction are not one and the same and different transactions. Therefore, it is clear that accused have not made repayment in view of debt due under Ex.P5. The admission made by PW1 does not seems to be material in nature, hence, ignored and not considered.
26. Therefore the reasons, it is clearly observed that the accused unable to disprove the case of the complainant and also failed to establish his case according to principles of preponderance of probabilities. When the defence of accused does not falls under rebuttable evidence as per preponderance of probabilities, the accused is not entitled for rebuttable evidence. Therefore, the PW1 is very much entitled to the presumptions as discussed in aforesaid paragraphs. Therefore, it cant be said that the accused failed to establish her case by producing rebuttable evidence.
19
27.Moreover, the PW1 had successfully discharged his initial burden of proving the case by showing legal enforceable debt. PW1 proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts by substantive evidence. Therefore in view of the reasons, there is no hesitation to say that the accused found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments
Act by establishing all the ingredients for the commission of offence. The amount involved in this case is not a small amount. Admittedly, PW1 filed
Ex.P1 cheque in this case and filed civil suit for recovery of money and decreed in his favour. Therefore, it is the opinion of the court that apart from imprisonment, awarding compensation is not necessary. Hence, the P.W.1.
is not deserved for compensatory punishment as per provision of Negotiable
Instrument Act. Therefore, this court feels that the present case is not fit case for awarding compensation instead of awarding fine amount to the government. . Accordingly, point is answered.
28.In the result, I found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer - III and corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court this the 19 th day of February, 2026.
IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Tirupati
HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE
Accused called present. Heard on quantum of sentence. She submitted that he is suffering from ill-health and widow. Having family burdens and 20 responsibilities and also need to perform her old aged responsibility in her family and she never due any amount to complainant and she had grounds for appeal and hence the reasons, the accused prayed this court to taken lenient view in awarding compensation.
The accused is convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months (6) months and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable instruments Act.
Fine amount paid Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only).
The passing of order under section 428 of Cr.P.C is not required as accused is never in judicial custody.
The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this judgment before the appellate court.
The copy of judgment is given to the accused forthwith on free of cost and obtained acknowledgment.
//True copy//Sd/- G. Srinivas
Sd/- G. SrinivasIV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum
IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) CumIV Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Tirupati Tirupati
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:
P.W.1:T.S. Mohan ReddyNone
P.W.2: N. Prasad 21
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR COMPLAINANT: (marked through PW1)
Ex.P1: Dishonoured cheque bearing No.393761, dt. 19.07.2021 issued by the accused to him.
Ex.P2 : Cheque return memo issued by his banker,
Ex.P3 : Office copy of legal notice issued by me to accused. dt.26.07.2021,
Ex.P4 : Acknowledgment card dt. 29.07.2021
Ex.P5 : is the certified copy of promissory no dt 30.05.2019, (Ex P5 received in to record vide orders in CriMP No. 1294/2025,
Ex.P6 : is the certified copy of exparte decree in O.S.No. 793/2021 on the file of PDM court, Tirupath, or 23.02.2022. (Ex.P6 is received into record vide orders in CrIMP No. dt.07.01.2026).
FOR ACCUSED: Nil
MATERIAL OBJECTS EXHIBITED ARE:
Nil //True copy//
Sd/- G. Srinivas
Sd/- G. SrinivasIV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum
IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) CumIV Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Tirupati Tirupati
FAIR JUDGMENT
22
IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM
IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TIRUPATI
Calender in C.C.No. 239 of 2020
23 :12.12.2019 Date of offence :10.09.2020 Date of complaint
Date of cognizance taken:24.01.2020
Date of appearance of accused:11.01.2024
Date of commencement of trial:12.03.2024
Date of close of trial:09.12.2025
Date of Judgment:11.02.2026
Complainant: K.Kumaraswamy Naidu, aged 52 years, S/o K.S.Doraswamy Naidu, residing at D.No.182-268/12, Road No.2, Abbana Colony, Tirupati town, Chittoor District.
Description of the accused: R. Uma Shankar, aged 38 years, S/o Late Muneiah, residing at D.No.20-2-575B, Maruthi Nagar, Korlagunta, Tirupati Town, Chittoor District.
Nature of offence: Dishonour of Cheque : U/s.138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Section of Law Act.
Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the Court: Found not guilty
Reasons for delay:
This case is taken on file on 24.01.2020; copies of the documents are furnished to the accused on 02.02.2024; the accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C on 06.02.2024; PW1 was examined, Ex. P1 to P9 are marked on 12.03.2024, Ex. P10 to P13 are marked on 10.09.2025 and Ex.P14 is marked on 23.01.2026; on 28.01.2026, the accused was examined under section 313
Cr.P.C and reported defence evidence on his behalf. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused; during the cross-examination of PW1, on 23.09.2024,
Ex.D1 is marked. Heard arguments on 28.01.2026; and on 11.02.2026, the 24 judgment is pronounced. Hence, the delay.
Sentence or Order:
In the result, I found the accused not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, she is acquitted for the same under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be remained in force for further period of six (6) months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of IPC.
IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Tirupati 25 11.02.2026:
Accused present.
Judgment pronounced in the open court.
(Vide separate Judgment)
In the result, I found the accused not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be remained in force for further period of six (6) months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of IPC.
IV AJMFC, TPT
26