Mr. Jitin Kumar

:1: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MANORANJAN COMPLEX, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri. Jitin Kumar VII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad

Friday, 5 th day of December, 2025

CC-NI.No. 17172 of 2022

(Old CC No. 1044/2018 on the file of IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hyderabad)

BETWEEN:

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Agencies, Having its office at #16-11-511/D/76, Shalivahana Complex, Shalivahana Nagar, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad – 500 036. Represented by its Proprietor Smt. G. Ganga Lakshmi, wife of G. Ramulu, R/o: 2-2-1144/5, New Nallakunta,

Brahmin Hostel lane, Hyderabad- 500 044. ...Complainant.

AND

A1. Sri Vishwaraja marketing Associates, Represented by its Proprietor Sri. K. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Plot No. 71, Haritha Homes, Badangpet, Ranga Reddy District.

A2. K. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o: K. Krishna Reddy, Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Proprietor of Sri Vishwaraja marketing Associates, R/o: Plot No. 71, Haritha Homes, Badangpet, Ranga Reddy District.

A3. K. Shisupal Reddy, S/o: Not known to complainant, Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Representative and employee of Sri Vishwaraja marketing Associates, DLRL Colony, Prashanti Hills, Meerpet, Hyderabad.

(The case against A3 was Quashed on 29.01.2024, as per the Orders of Hon’ble High Court vide

Crl.Petition No. 9465/2018)...Accused No.1 to 3

Offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Ch. Premchandan Rao, Counsel for the Complainant and of Sri. Konda Krishna, Counsel for Accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

:2: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed against the above named accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter be referred to as N.I.Act.

The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:

2.That the complainant is the sole propitiatory concern in the business of

Cement trading. G. Ramulu being the Proprietor’s husband is looking after day to day affairs of the complainant firm and A2 is the Proprietor of A1 and deleted

A3 is the employee of A1. Complainant further submitted that A3 representing and managing the business of A1 firm which has been purchasing the cement from complainant firm on credit basis and been paying amount on a later date.

The complainant firm supplied the cement as follows:

i.Credit memo No. 12369 for Rs. 38,560/- dated 05.06.2012 and as against the discharge of the amount, Accused No.2, issued the cheque bearing

No. 653575 dated 04.07.2012 for an amount of Rs. 38,560/-.

ii.Credit memo No. 12395 for Rs. 48,400/- dated 17.06.2012 and as against the discharge of the amount, Accused No.2, issued two cheques bearing

No. 653302 & 653303 dated 02.07.2012 and 04.07.2012 for an amount of Rs.

24,000/- each respectively.

iii.Credit memo No. 12396 for Rs. 44,600/- dated 17.06.2012 and as against the discharge of the amount, Accused No.2, issued two cheques bearing

No. 653304 & 653305 dated 06.07.2012 and 07.07.2012 for an amount of Rs.

22,000/- each respectively.

iv.Credit memo No. 12398 for Rs. 44,400/- dated 19.06.2012 and as against the discharge of the amount, Accused No.2, issued two cheques bearing

No. 653306 & 653307 dated 08.07.2012 and 10.07.2012 for an amount of Rs.

22,200/- each respectively.

v.Credit memo No. 12427, 12428 & 12449 for Rs. 32,200/-, Rs. 44,000/- and Rs. 47,800/- dated 28.06.2012, 28.06.2012 and 02.07.2012 and as against the discharge of the amount, Accused No.2, of issued a cheques bearing No.

653310 dated 27.03.2013 for an amount of Rs. 1,24,000/-.

:3: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 vi.Further, by cash/credit memo Nos. 12468 & 12494 for Rs. 46,800/- and

Rs. 49,800/- dated 11.04.2012, 25.07.2012.

Complainant further submitted that on 24.07.2012 when complainant informed the A2 & A3 that cheques issued towards discharge of above mentioned No.1 to 4 credit memos of supply of cement were bounced and the amounts under the said invoices being out standing for Rs.3,94,160/-. On that

A2 and A3 immediately paid Rs.50,000/- and requested the complainant for further time to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,44,160/- and since complainant asserted the accused No.2 issued two cheques bearing Nos. 653310 for Rs.

1,24,000/- and cheque No.653311 for Rs. 2,20,160/- dated 27.03.2013 drawn on Deccan Grameena Bank and further requested the complainant to present both cheques to the bank. Complainant further submitted that in the hope of getting amount when the complainant presented both the cheques, both cheques were returned unpaid for the reason ‘Insufficient Funds’ and when complainant communicated the dishonour of cheque to the A2 and A3, both A2 and A3 further requested the complainant to present the cheques once again and when again complainant presented the cheques then again both cheques were bounced for the reason ‘Insufficient Funds’ vide cheque return memo dated 16.04.2013. Complainant further submitted that on this complainant got issued required statutory notice on 08.02.2013 to the accused No.1, A2 and deleted A3 informing the dishonor of the cheques same legal notice was received by deleted

A3on 11.05.2013 as reflected in the postal acknowledgment dated 14.05.2013.

And the notice regarding A1 and A2, the same were returned unserved with endorsement ‘Party left Return to sender’. Hence the complaint.

3.The complainant filed the complaint before the Hon’ble IV Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 11.06.2013 and numbered as

CC.No. 738 of 2013. As per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Sessions Judge,

:4: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022

Hyderabad, this case is transferred to X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad and re- numbered as 29 of 2014. Again as per the orders of the Hon’ble Sessions

Hyderabad, the case file is transferred to this Court on 05.09.2022 and again renumbered as CC-NI No. 17172 of 2022.

4. Upon the appearance of the accused No.2, he was provided with a copy of the complaint and other relevant documents under Section 207 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Thereafter accused No.2 was examined under Sec- tion 251 of the Cr.P.C., in which A2 reported that whole story of the complainant is false and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offence and matter was put for trial.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant examined himself as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 as documentary evidence. Ex.P1 is the

Credit Memo No. 12369 for Rs.38,560/- dt.05.03.2012, Ex.P2 is the Cheque bearing No. 653575 for Rs.38,560/-, dt.04.07.2012, Ex.P3 is the Credit memo No. 12395 for Rs.48,400/- dt.17.06.2012, Ex.P4 is the Cheque bearing No. 653302 for Rs.24,000/- dt.02.07.2012, Ex.P5 is the cheque bearing No.653303 for Rs.24,000/- dt.04.07.2012, Ex.P6 is the Credit memo

No. 12396 for Rs.44,600/- dt.17.06.2012, Ex.P7 is the cheque bearing No.

653304 for Rs.22,200/- dt.06.07.2012, Ex.P8 is the cheque bearing No.

653305 for Rs.22,200/- dt.07.07.2012, Ex.P9 is the Credit Memo No.12398 for Rs.44,400/- dt.19.06.2012, Ex.P10 is the cheque bearing No. 653306 for

Rs.22,200/- dt.08.07.2012, Ex.P11 is the cheque bearing No. 653307 for

Rs.22,200/- dt.10.07.2012, Ex.P12 is the Credit Memo No. 12427 for

Rs.32,200/- dt.28.06.2012, Ex.P13 is the Credit Memo No.12428 for

Rs.44,000/-, dt.28.06.2012, Ex.P14 is the Credit Memo No.12449 for

Rs.47,800/-, dt.02.07.2012, Ex.P15 is the Cheque bearing No.653310 for

Rs.1,24,000/- dt.27.03.2013, Ex.P16 is the Cheque Return Memo issued by :5: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 the Deccan Grameena Bank, Bagh Amberpet branch, dt.16.04.2013, Ex.P17 is the Credit memo No.12468 for Rs.46,800/- dt.11.07.2012, Ex.P18 is the

Credit Memo No.12494 for Rs.49,800/- dt.25.07.2012, Ex.P19 is the Cheque bearing No.653311 for Rs.2,20,160/- dt.27.03.2013, Ex.P20 is the Cheque

Return Memo dt.15.04.2013, Ex.P21 is the office copy of the Statutory

Notice, dt.08.05.2013, Ex.P22 is the original Postal Receipt of the Registered

Post, Ex.P22-A is the Original Postal Receipt of the Registered Post, Ex.P22-

B is the Original Postal Receipt of the Registered Post, Ex.P23 is the

Acknowledgment Card, Ex.P24 is the Returned Cover, Ex.P25 is the Return

Cover and further PW.2 by name G.Ramulu was examined on behalf of prosecution and further got marked Ex.P26 to P30-E, Ex.P26 is the VAT

Registration Certificate issued by the CTO, Malakpet, dt.19.01.2009, Ex.P27 is the VAT Registration Certificate issued by the CTO, Malakpet, dt.16.02.2015, Ex.P28 is the Sales Tax returns for the month of June 2012 dt.05.07.2012, Ex.P29 is the Sales Tax Returns for the month of July 2012 dt.04.08.2012, Ex.P30 is the Day to day Sale Register pertaining to the said period, Ex.P30-A is the Relevant Entry in page No.10, in Sl.No.10, Ex.P30-B is the Relevant Entry in Page No.11, in Sl.No.36, 37, 39, 68, Ex.P30-C is the

Relevant Entry in Page No.12, in Sl.No. 69, Ex.P30-D is the Relevant entry in Page No.13, in Sl. No. 3, 29, Ex.P30-E is the Relevant Entry in Page

No.14, in Sl. No. 53.

6. Both PW.1 and PW.2 were cross examined by the learned counsel for the

Accused. After the closure of the complainant’s evidence, Accused No.2 was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and reported that whole story of the prosecution is false and he do not know anything about the company and no registration was done of company and further reported that he has not received the legal notice and further do not know anything about the business and he do not :6: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 know the complainant and after coming to the Court he saw the complainant for the first time and he don’t know anything about this case. Thereafter the accused No.2 himself examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D-1 to D-8 and one

K.Shishupal Reddy/Deleted A3 examined as DW.2 and due to further reporting of no defence evidence by learned counsel for accused, this Court has closed the defence evidence and the matter was put for final arguments.

7. Heard the arguments on behalf of both sides and perused the record. After carefully hearing the arguments presented by both sides, the following points arise for determination:

Now the point for determination is that

(i)whether the cheque in question was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable liability or not;

(ii)whether the cheque was presented before the bank for encash ment within three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier or not;

(iii)whether demand is made in writing by the payee or holder in due course by the issuance of a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of information from the bank of the return of the cheques or not; and

(iv)whether there is failure of the drawer to make the payment of the cheque amount to the payee or the holder in due course within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or not.

8.The short facts of the case are that accused No.2 has purchased the cement from the complainant on credit basis and thereafter for paying the credit amount A2 issued two cheques in favour of the complainant for Rs.1,24,000/- and Rs.2,20,160/- and when both the cheques were presented by the complainant to the bank it was dishonoured on the ground mentioned as ‘Funds Insufficient’.

9.In chief examination of PW.1, he reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and legal notice and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P25. In cross- :7: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 examination of PW.1, he stated that he has no idea whether he filed any TIN certificate, VAT certificate of his company and further he do not remember the

TIN and VAT numbers of the company. PW.1 further stated that the bills i.e.,

Ex.P1, P3, P6, P9, P12 to P14, P17, P18 filed by him do not contain the TIN number and VAT number and complainant’s husband is looking after Marketing

Section of the complainant company. PW.1 further stated that he do not know whether Accused No.3 against whom case has been quashed by the Hon’ble

High Court of Telangana was looking after the business transaction of Viswa

Raja Marketing Associate. PW.1 further stated that there is no terms and conditions in writing for supply of material to the accused on credit basis and no orders were put by the accused for supply of material. PW.1 further stated that he stated in the complaint that her husband is looking after the business transactions and no undertaking was taken from the accused that in lieu of all earlier cheques the matter was settled and accordingly Ex.P15 i.e., cheque of

Rs.1,24,000/- and Ex.P19 i.e., Cheque of Rs.2,20,160/- were taken from the accused No.2. PW.1 further stated that the receipt shown to him is the receipt issued by his company for Rs.30,000/- and it bears the signature of her husband. PW.1 further stated that Ex.D1 is the receipt dated 28.01.2012, Ex.D2 a receipt dated 24.05.2012 for Rs.1,06,040/- bear signature of her husband.

Ex.D3 a receipt dated 28.05.2012 for Rs.28,560/-, which bears the signatures of her husband and accused, Ex.D4 is the Receipt dated 09.01.2012 for

Rs.22,200/-, Ex.D5 is the Receipt dated 01.09.2012 for Rs.30,000/-, Ex.D6 is the Receipt dated 25.07.2012 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.D7 is the Receipt dated 12.07.2012 for Rs.46,800/-, Ex.D8 is the Receipt dated 30.05.2002 for

Rs.35,422/- bears signature of accused. PW.1 further stated that Ex.P18 is the

Credit Memo dated 25.07.2012 was signed by him and not signed by the accused and in the business transactions with the accused, the complainant company keeps the pink colour and white colour bills were given to the accused :8: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 and pink colour bills filed by the complainant does not contain the signature of the accused and complainant company maintains the sale register in which signature of the accused is compulsorily taken when goods were supplied to the accused. PW.1 further stated that he did not file the said sale register before this Court and complainant company filed sale tax return for a relevant period of business transaction of this case and PW.1 did not file copies of said sale tax returns. PW.1 further stated that he did not mention the description particulars of the supplied material such as Cement together with the quantity and dates of supply and further PW.1 did not file transport bill, Way bill and further PW.1 did not mention in the complaint about purchase of cement from different brands and PW.1 is only an agent of Cement stock. PW.1 further stated that he do not know whether A2 is preparing for Civil Service

Examination and further do not know about A2’s education qualification. PW.1 further stated that he do not know whether accused has filed complaint against him or his husband in Nampally Court. PW.1 further stated that there is a difference in hand writing of Ex.P15 and P19. PW.1 further stated that he did not file Civil Suit for recovery of money from the accused and some suggestions were put by the Learned Counsel for the Accused.

10.In chief examination of PW.2/G.Ramulu S/o. Limbaiah Ex.P26 to Ex.P30 and Ex.P30-A to Ex.P30-E were marked and he stated that he is the Third Party to this case and he is the husband of PW.1 that is why he knows the facts of the case. PW.2 further stated that his wife G.Ganga Laxmi was carrying the business of cement trading in the name of M/s. Laxmi Agencies and she got TIN and VAT certificates and VAT registration certificate dated 01.09.2007 issued by

CTO Malakpet already been filed along with the complaint and now along with chief he is filing the VAT Registration Certificate which is marked as Ex.P25.

After formation of Telangana State VAT Registration certificate registration No.

:9: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 2848299790 is produced and marked as Ex.P26. PW.2 further stated that because of business disturbance the shop was closed and he along with his wife continuing the business from home and he is looking after the business on behalf of his wife. Though A1 is the proprietary concern of A2, the day to day affairs of A1 business being managed by Accused No.2 and his elder brother

K.Shishupal Reddy and either of the brothers used to place the oral order for supply of cement and they used to issue a cheque for the said amount and used to buy the cement from us on credit basis and some times the payment was made in cash as against the return of cheques and some times the cheques has to be presented and encashed. PW.2 further submitted that he along with his wife supplied cement to A1 proprietary concern under the below mentioned credit memos.

a)Credit memo No. 12369 for Rs. 38,560/- dated 05.06.2012 and as against the discharge of the amount, Accused No.2, issued the cheque bearing

No. 653575.

b).Credit memo No. 12395 for Rs. 48,400/- dated 17.06.2012 and as against the discharge of the amount, Accused No.2, issued two cheques bearing

No. 653302 & 653303 dated 02.07.2012 and 04.07.2012 for an amount of Rs.

24,000/- each respectively.

c).Credit memo No. 12396 for Rs. 44,600/- dated 17.06.2012 and as against the discharge of the amount, Accused No.2, issued two cheques bearing

No. 653304 & 653305 dated 06.07.2012 and 07.07.2012 for an amount of Rs.

22,000/- each respectively.

d).Credit memo No. 12398 for Rs. 44,400/- dated 19.06.2012 and as against the discharge of the amount, Accused No.2, issued two cheques bearing

No. 653306 & 653307 dated 08.07.2012 and 10.07.2012 for an amount of Rs.

22,200/- each respectively.

e).Credit memo No. 12427 dated 28.06.2012 for Rs. 32,200/-

f) Credit memo No. 12428 dated 28.06.2012 for Rs. 44,000/-

g)Credit memo No. 12449 dated 02.07.2012 for Rs. 47,800/-

h)Credit memo No. 12468 dated 11.07.2012 for Rs. 46,800/-

I)Credit memo No. 12494 dated 25.07.2012 for Rs. 49,800/- :10: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022

PW.2 further stated that A1 became due and payable to us under Credit

Memos referred above and as they deposited the cheques bearing Nos. 653575, 653302, 653304, 653305, 653306 and 653307 with their banker i.e., Karur

Vysya Bank and all these cheques were returned unpaid for the reason “Insufficient Funds”. When repeated demands made to A2 and his brother

Shishupal Reddy for a total sum due of Rs.3,96,560/- then both brothers reported not to further supply the cements until current payment is made.

PW.2 further submitted that against the total debt of Rs.3,96,560/- A2 and his brother paid Rs.50,000/- in cash and issued two cheques 653310 for

Rs.1,24,000/- and cheque No.653311 is for Rs.2,20,160/- both dated 27-03- 2013. PW.2 further submitted that when both the cheques were presented to the bank, both the cheques were returned unpaid with the reasons “Funds

Insufficient” vide Cheque Return memo dated 16.04.2013. Immediately he called A2 and his brother and told them about the bouncing of cheques and when no response was received from A2 and his brother, PW.2 along with complainant got issued legal notice dated 08.05.2013 to the accused and his brother Shishupal Reddy and legal notice was returned unserved. PW.2 further submitted that every Credit memo or Cash Memo of independent to the other and payment of each memo shall be paid and the arrangements are like that after the supply of cement we shall give credit of 10 days and against the discharge of said Credit Memo some times accused made the payment in cash and some times through encashment of cheques. PW.2 further submitted that

Ex.D1 to Ex.D8 are genuine and not executed by PW.1 and PW.2 and the signatures on Ex.D1 to D3 does not belong to him. PW.2 further submitted that in the credit memos there would be three copies of each receipt that is white copy of customer and pink colou copies is for merchant and out of two pink copies one will be retained in book and other for the acknowledgment of the party concern who receive the material in credit memo. The credit memos in :11: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022

Ex.P1, P3, P6, Ex.P9, P12, P13 and P14 have been signed by the A2 admitting the receipt of cement and by oversight though the cement referred in credit memo in Ex.P17 and Ex.P18, PW.1 could not take the signature of the accused but through Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 cements were supplied under the Ex.P1, P3,

P6, P9, P12, P13, P14, P17 and P18 and got marked.

11.In cross examination of PW.2 he stated that he did not receive any summons for becoming witness in this case, he along with his wife filed the complaint and on the request of wife he became prosecution witness and his chief examination was drafted on his instructions and the present complaint was filed against A1 which is the company, A2 Chandra Sekhar Reddy and deleted A3 Shishupal Reddy and both A2 and deleted A3 did business transactions with complainant company and PW.2 do not know the father name of A2 and the age of A2 is below 50 years, there is no memorandum of understanding between complainant and accused company. PW.2 further stated that he did not file any written orders of the accused and further added that oral orders were received from accused. PW.2 further stated that no documents with the name of accused company is filed with respect of statement of tax and he can file the ledger account of the accused. PW.2 further stated that he is doing day to day business of PW.1/complainant. PW.2 further stated that in para No.4(A) to (D) the credit memos and the cheques issued against the credit memos stated in clause (E) to (I) to undertaking were taken at the time of taking two disputed cheques and both disputed cheques amount do not include any interest and the total amount due by the accused is Rs.3,44,160/- for which accused issued two disputed cheques, one for Rs.1,24,000/- and another is for

Rs.2,20,160/-. PW.2 further stated that A2 did not give him undertaking in view of the earlier failure of cheques, and fresh two cheques i.e., Ex.P15 and

Ex.P19 were issued and Ex.P15 and Ex.P19 were issued on the same day but with different amounts and accused requested PW.2 to present after three to :12: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 four days. PW.2 further stated that he do not remember the exact date of the accused handing over the cheques to the PW.1/Complainant. PW.2 further stated that he do not remember the exact dates of handing over Ex.P15 and

Ex.P19 to the complainant but he further stated that it was in 2013. PW.2 further stated that he did not issue bill or receipt to the accused acknowledging the receipt of the cheques. PW.2 further added that he issued the acknowledgment in the letter head of PW.1 to the accused and he did not file the office copy of such letter head. PW.2 further stated that the year column in earlier cheques were returned by referring last two digits only whereas Ex.P15 and Ex.P19, the years were written as entirely and the undisputed cheques were presented in the bank for three times and Ex.P15 and Ex.P19 were presented twice and PW.2 never mentioned about number of times of presentation of the same bank along with reasons. PW.2 further stated that the accused at the time of giving Ex.P15 and Ex.P19 with signatures to PW.2 and further instructed

PW.2 to fill amount due and date with in the three months time and A2 signed on the cheque and even prior coming to him and handing over the cheques to him/PW.2. PW.2 further stated that he cannot say within the how much period he presented the cheque and whenever accused communicated on phone to present the cheque, he presented the cheques. PW.2 further stated that he did not issue notice for the second time when first notice was returned as Unserved as Party Left and PW.2 know the address of the accused. Subsequently accused changed his residence. PW.2 further stated that Ex.D1 to D-8 are in his hand writing and his signatures were also there and he did not put the dates and those receipts while issued with respect to whole transaction and some suggestions were put by the learned counsel for accused.

12.Thereafter, Accused No.2 himself examined as DW.1 and in chief examination of DW.1, he stated that he do not know the complainant company and the signatory of the complainant company. A1 associate is run by his elder :13: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 brother Shishupal Reddy and he is nowhere concern with any transaction entered into by A1 and A2 company. A3 alone was conducting the business transaction of A1. DW.1 further stated that he open an account in the name of

A1 in Deccan Grameena Bank, Amberpt, Hyderabad and the said account have the facility of cheque books, A3 is doing to the business transaction of A1 through the cheques and all the cheques that were presented by the complainant and also the cheques that were dishonored and the present disputed two cheques, undisputed cheques of series were issued by A3 on behalf of A1 and that A3 signed on all those cheques and some of the cheques issued and signed by A3 representing A1 were encashed. DW.1 further stated that A3 made payments representing A1 company including the cheques that were dishonored i.e., Ex.P15 and Ex.P19 and those payments were made under receipts that is Ex.D1 to D8 and further A3 is not liable on behalf of A1 company any amount to the complainant. DW.1 further stated that he filed a private complaint against the complainant in this case and also against PW.2 in this case and he also lodged a complaint against them in PS Amberpet and private complaint was also filed before Hon’ble IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad. DW.1 further stated that in 2012 he was a student and

preparing for competative exam and he further appeared for SI in 2011 and for various posts till 2017.

13.In the cross examination of DW.1, he stated that he can read and write in English and the cheques referred in Ex.D2 and D3 are not referred to this complaint and also the evidence of PW.1. DW.1 further stated that the dates of

Ex.D1 to D8 are long prior to the date of Ex.P1 cheque and he did not mention in chief examination that signatures on Ex.D2 and D3 are not his signatures and the signatures on Ex.D2 and D3 are not similar to his signature. DW.1 further stated that he opened the account under subject cheques was opened by :14: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 him in his account. DW.1 further stated that in his chief examination he did not mention specifically that signature on all the cheques were not his signatures and he do not know whether deleted A3 is accused is in this Case. DW.1 further stated that he not state in his examination that the cheques did not contain his signature and A3 signed his signature on the cheque. DW.1 further stated that deleted A3 forged his signatures on cheques. DW.1 did not file the copies of the complainant lodged against Sri. Laxmi Agencies and Ramulu in PS Amberpet and he filed complaint in the Court and the same was referred to the PS. DW.1 further stated that the account was opened by him for A1 in the year 2011 or 2012 and the transaction by way of cheques were done in that account by issuing the cheques in this case and he filed private complaint in the Hon’ble IV

Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad after receiving summons from this Court. Further DW.1 nowhere filed any complaint stating his signatures were forged by A3. DW.1 further stated that when his cheques were sent to FSL, FSL opined his/DW.1 signatures are similar to the signatures on the cheques and DW.1 further stated that he did not denied the transaction stated in the complaint including the settlement and also issuing of the cheques. DW.1 further stated that he did not mention in chief examination that transaction under P series were not done by him and further nowhere stated about receiving of Statutory Notice. DW.1 further stated that delered A3 informed about the statutory legal notice and he did not issue any reply to the legal notice and never made payments and some suggestions were put by the

Learned Counsel for the Accused.

14.In chief examination of DW.2, he stated that he know the complainant agency and he is dealing the business of A1 and complainant and A1 deal in cement business and PW.1 is the proprietor of complainant company and DW.2 is the proprietor of A1 firm. PW.2 Ramulu is dealing with the business of the :15: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 complainant and he/DW.2 is dealing with the business of A1 firm. PW1 has no business dealing with A1 or him/DW.2. DW.2 was further stated that he opened the Firm and also a bank account in the name of A1 and the transaction happened between PW.2 and him. After opening the account by A1, the bank provided a cheque book to A2 and he/DW.2 was doing job in another company at that time. DW.2 further stated that A2 signed on all the cheques in the cheque book and thereafter he/DW.2 given the cheques to PW.2 for security purpose and DW.2 has made payments against all the cheques i.e., Ex.P1 to

Ex.P25 and further PW.2 received Statutory Legal Notice in which complainant stated that DW.2 not paid the amount covered under Ex.P15 and Ex.P19. DW.2 further stated that PW.2 signed on Ex.D1 dated 28.01.2012 receipt amount of

Rs.30,000/- an cheque numbers are not stated in it. PW.2 received an amount of Rs.1,06,040/- under the receipt and DW.2 made all the payment under Ex.D1 to D9 totaling an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and the amount mentioned in

Ex.P16 and 19 are covered under Ex.D1 to D9 and till today A1 and DW.2 are not due to any amount to the complainant and PW.2 retained DW.2 property documents and DW.2 demanded the document to PW.2 and PW.2 did not return the same.

15.In the cross examination of DW.2, he stated that he know the contents of complaint, documents, evidence of PW.1 and evidence of DW.1 and he has gone through the contents of legal notice and thereafter he handed over the same to

DW.1 and he did not issue the reply to the legal notice. DW.2 further stated that

DW.1 opened the bank account of A1 Firm and signed on the cheque leafs and gave to him for the purpose of using the business of A1 Firm and DW.1 has no knowledge of handing over the cheques by me to PW.1. DW.1 did not sign in any other document except the cheques. DW.2 further stated that he signed signatures in the name of K.C. Reddy and signatures on Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 are in :16: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 the name of K.C.Reddy and payments were made against the cheques and the receipts. The receipt do not contain the reference of the cheque as against the which they were issued. DW.2 further stated that in chief of DW.1, DW.1 deposed that he/DW.2 forged the signatures on bills and receipts and cheques of DW.1 and he/DW.2 have been attending the day to day business of A1 firm and DW.2 issued the cheques to the complainant. DW.1 issued the reply notice but he/DW.2 did not issue the reply notice. DW.2 further stated that he knows the report of FSL that signature on the cheque were made by DW.1. DW.2 further stated that no account books are maintained in the business of A1 firm and there is no proof of practice of making payments to the complainant except receipts filed and some suggestions were put by the learned counsel for accused.

16.I have gone through the entire record and carefully perused the evidence lead by the complainant only but before appreciating the facts of the case at length for arriving at any conclusion let the relevant position of law will discuss first :-

Before finding the conviction of the accused u/s 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, it has to be established by the complainant cumulatively that :

(i) the cheque in question was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable liability;

(ii)the cheque was presented before the bank for encashment within three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(iii)a demand is made in writing by the payee or holder in due course by the issuance of a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of information from the bank of the return of the cheques; and

(iv)there is failure of the drawer to make the payment of the cheque amount to the payee or the holder in due course within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice.

:17: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022

17.This legal position was discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in case titled as MSR Leathers vs. S. Palaniappan (2013) 1 SCC 177, wherein it was held that, “6.……. The proviso to Section 138, however, is all important and stipulates three distinct conditions precedent, which must be satisfied before the dis-

honour of a cheque can constitute an offence and

become punishable. The first condition is that the cheque ought to have been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its va- lidity, whichever is earlier. The second condition is that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, ought to make a de- mand 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 re- turn of the cheque as unpaid. The third condition is that the drawer of such a cheque should have failed to make 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. It is only upon the satisfaction of all the three conditions mentioned above and enumerated under the pro- viso to Section 138 as clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof that an offence under Section 138 can be said to have been committed by the person is- suing the cheque.

18.This Court shall now examine if the aforesaid four ingredients as described in the forgoing paragraph have been duly satisfied in this case or not.

That whether the cheque in dispute was presented within the period of its valid- ity or not has not been disputed by the accused No.2 at any stage of trial. In the case in hand since there is no dispute or any examination of witnesses by the accused No.2 regarding the validity period of the cheques which is presented be- fore the Bank and in this case after perusal also this Court finds that the cheque was presented before the Bank within the statutory period. In the case in hand since there is no evidence placed on record by the accused No.2 to con- :18: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 tradict or to disprove the validity period of the cheque. Accordingly, condition no. (ii), as above stands satisfied and in favour of the complainant.

19.In the present matter, accused No.2 has denied the receiving of statutory legal demand notice at the time of Section 251 of Cr.P.C examination but he had the due notice of the pendency of present complaint case against him and de- spite which he had failed to make payment of cheque amount in question to the complainant. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, in case of C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty

Muhammed , (2007) 6 SCC 555, wherein it has been held as follows:

“ It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of sum- mons from the court in respect of the complaint un- der Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of sum- mons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As ob- served in Bhaskarans case (supra), if the giving of notice in the context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of notice a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act.

Accordingly, conditions No.(iii) and (iv) as above also stands satisfied in favour of the complainant as it is matter of record that accused had due notice of the pendency of the present complaint case and despite which he failed to make the payment of cheque in question to the complainant.

:19: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022

20.It is now only remains to be seen for the point No.(i) whether the accused

No.2 issued the cheque in question Ex.P15 i.e., cheque of Rs.1,24,000/- and

Ex.P19 cheque for Rs.2,20,160/- in favour of the complainant in order to dis- charge his legally enforceable liability or not.

21.Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e. Complainant in the present case, as soon as the execu- tion of cheque is proved. Firstly, under Section 118 (a) N.I. Act, with respect to the consideration that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for con- sideration and when such instrument has been accepted, transferred, negotiated or endorsed was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.

Secondly, a presumption under section 139 N.I. Act that it shall be presumed that the holder of cheque received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability unless contrary is proved.

Section 118 (a) of the N.I. Act provides :

“Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. —Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: of consideration —that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

Section 139 of the N.I. Act further provides as follows :-

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

However, both the aforesaid presumptions are rebuttable in nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Basalingappa Vs.

Mudibasappa, Crl. Appeal No.636 of 2019 , (2019) 5 SCC 418: The same is produced as under :

23. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a) and139, we now summarise the princi- ples enumerated by this Court in following manner:

:20: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022

(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the dis- charge of any debt or other liability.

(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presump- tion and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable de- fence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.

(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable de- fence. 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.

(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the wit- ness box in support of his defence,Section 139 imposed an evi- dentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.

22.As per the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned Judgment, the presumptions u/s 118(a) read with Section 139 of the

Act has to be compulsorily raised against the accused once execution of cheque by the accused is either admitted by him, or is proved by the complainant and thereafter the burden is shifted upon accused to prove otherwise. These pre- sumptions shall be rebutted only when the contrary is proved by the accused i.e., the cheque was not issued for any consideration, or in discharge of any debt or liability.

23.In the instant case, accused No.2 has not admitted his signature on the cheque in question and issuance of the cheque, in answer to notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C as well as in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. but in his cross exami- nation Learned Counsel for the complainant has rightly put the suggestion re- garding not mentioning anywhere about issuance of cheque or signature on the cheque and further in cross examination DW.2 accepted that A2 signed all cheques and handed over to him/DW.2. After perusal of the FSL report, it also suggests that the signature on the cheque is of A2 only. In the case in hand af- :21: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 ter perusal of the examinations done by this Court on accused and on each and every questions accused has said that everything is false, he has not issued the cheque, he has not signed the cheque and whole story of the prosecution is false and whatever PW.1 said that is also false but nowhere accused was telling about how his cheque was landed into the custody of the complainant. Giving answers under examination by saying that every story of the prosecution is false without leading any material or evidence before the Court is of no use. So at each and every point of examination, accused said whole story of the prosecution is false and he has nothing to do with the transaction. After perusal of the file, this court finds that accused after Sec.313 Cr.P.C said that he intend to lead the evi- dence and examined himself and his brother as DW.1 and DW.2. In the case in hand after perusing the Ex.P1, P3, P6, P9, P12, P13, P14 and P17, this Court finds that there is a business relation between Accused No.2 and the com- plainant for the purpose of selling and purchasing of cements. After perusal of the Ex.P1, P3, P6, P9, P12, P13, P14 and P17, this Court finds that at some time the material were supplied on the credit basis as well and for that com- plainant used to take cheques from A2 so that payment will be made later on.

In the case in hand DW.1/A2 denied receiving of Legal Notice, but later it reveals that he replied to receiving of legal notice by complainant.

24.In the case in hand the contention of the complainant is that out of the material supplied on credit to A2 along with his brother issued cheques for the paying of material which was taken on credit and subsequently those cheques were bounced i.e., Ex.P15 and Ex.P19. In the case in hand, after perusal of ex- hibits marked on behalf of the accused i.e., Ex.D1 to Ex.D8, this Court finds that there is a business relation between complainant and Accused No.2 along with his brother and they used to take and receive money via cheques and cash in hand also. In the case in hand after perusal of the file, this Court finds that complainant and Accused No.2 along with his company were sharing business :22: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 relationship since long and in between so many transactions happened. In the case in hand after perusal of the cross examination of PW.1 this Court finds that nowhere Learned Counsel for the Accused has put question regarding the issuance of cheques and signature on cheques of A2. In the case in hand, ear- lier at the time of Sec.251 Cr.P.C examination, A2 bluntly said that whole story is false and he do not know the complainant and the complainant company but at the time of cross examination of PW.1, learned counsel for accused marked

Ex.D1 to Ex.D8 i.e., payment slips which were issued in favour of the com- plainant that is in itself is contradictory. At one stage accused No.2 is saying it is the Accused No.3 who is dealing with the complainant company but after pe- rusal of Ex.P1, P3, P6, P9, P12, P13, P14 and P17 this Court finds that there is a signature of accused No.2 on the exhibits mentioned above. After further pe- rusal this Court finds that Accused No.2 is saying that it is Accused No.3 who is dealing with the complainant company and accused No.3 is saying that it is the

Accused No.2 who is dealing with the complainant company. In the case in hand husband of the complainant who was examined himself as PW.2 and who were looking after the business of PW.1/complainant has supported the case of

PW.1 and in his cross examination he clearly states that both A2 and A3 did business transactions with the complainant company and due to long business relation with the A2 and A3 oral orders were also made between them and fur- ther clearly stated that in his cross examination that it is the A2 who issued the cheque and further clearly stated that the total amount due by A2 is

Rs.3,44,160/- and it is the A2 who issued the disputed cheque of Rs.1,24,000/- and another cheque of Rs.2,20,160/- and A2 issued the disputed cheques with one and say day and with different amounts and further reported that Ex.P15 and Ex.P19 were presented twice in the bank and accused handed over Ex.P15 and Ex.P19 by putting signatures and Accused No.2 signed on the cheques even prior to coming to him. In the case in hand, payment of Rs.50,000/- is not dis- :23: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 puted anywhere, neither Learned Counsel for accused has put any suggestion regarding payment of Rs.50,000/- out of total amount i.e., Rs.3,94,160/- which has been paid by A2 and A3/deleted to complainant.

25.In the case in hand after perusal of the complaint, chief examination and cross examination of PW.1 and PW.2 this Court finds that the version o f PW.1 and PW.2 are corroborating towards the fact that complainant company out of business transaction give material to the accused No.2 and for which accused

No.2 issued cheques to clearing the dues for the material taken in the case in hand after perusal of exhibits Ex.P1, P3, P6, P9, P12, P13, P14 and P17 this

Court finds that complainant and accused No.2 used to exchange cash and cheques for the payments and after perusing the Ex.P15 and Ex.P19 this Court finds that the cheque of the account of the A2 and after perusal of FSL report, they also opined that it is a signature of the A2. in the case in hand after pe- rusal of chief examination and cross examination of PW.1 and Pw.2 no where learned counsel for Accused has put question regarding whether Ex.P15 and

P19 were not issued by the accused No.2 or whether his signature was not there. PW.2 fully supported the contention of PW.1 by saying that the materials were supplied to the A1/company and on behalf of A1 company, A2 issued two cheques one is for Rs.1,24,000/- and another is for Rs.2,20,160/- for paying the money of the material supplied and for valid consideration and as a legal en- forceable debt and PW.2 filed VAT and TIN Certificates also. In the case in hand after perusal of whole documents, this Court finds that complainant supplied material of Rs.3,44,160/- to the company of A2 and on behalf of the A1/com- pany, A2 issued the two cheques one for Rs.1,24,000/- and another for

Rs.2,20,160/- and for valid consideration and for legal enforceable debt.

26. After perusing the Section 251 Cr.P.C examination and Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination and after finding no reasonable answer from A1 and A2 regarding :24: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 the fact that how their cheques were landed in to the custody of complainant and after perusing the chief affidavit of PW.1 and PW.2, this Court finds that and in view of the forgoing discussions, this Court is of the considered opin- ion that a presumption u/s 139 r/w Section 118(a) N.I. Act can duly be raised against the accused by saying that Negotiable Instrument was made and drawn for consideration and the cheques were received for the discharge of debt liability.

Accordingly point No.(i) is stands satisfied in favour of the complainant.

27.Since the above said two presumptions has been duly raised against the accused our next point of determination is that whether the accused is able to rebut the abovesaid presumptions or not. It is now a settled law that accused can rebut these presumption on a scale of standard of pre ponderance of proba- bilities, and to rebut these presumptions it is open for the accused to rely upon the direct evidence lead by himself, or in the exceptional cases, the accused can also rely on materials submitted by the complainant i.e. (statutory notice, evidence etc.) during the trial in order to raise a probable defence. Reliance in this regard, can be placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC.

“………………………………Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, …, it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. "It in- troduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the ac- cused" (ibid). Such a presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which de- scribes provisions by which the court "may presume" a cer- tain state of affairs. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond rea- sonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact un- :25: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 less the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non existence of the presumed fact. In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exists, no discretion is left with the Court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, "after considering the matters be- fore it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the suppo- sition that it exists". Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be ad- duced before the Court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of rea- sonability being that of the 'prudent man'.”

28.In the backdrop of legal position as enunciated above, it is now to be ex- amined by this Court that whether the accused on a scale of preponderance of probabilities has been able to rebut the presumptions which has been raised against him and in favour of the complainant, or has been able to demolish the case of the complainant to such extent so as to shift the onus placed upon the accused back again on the complainant, and if the Court comes to the conclu- sion that accused has not been able to rebut the presumptions raised against him by failing to bring on record direct evidence or by even failing to sufficiently perforate the case of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to a decision in his favour.

29.In light of the aforesaid legal position, this Court shall now examine that whether the accused has been able to prove his defence in affirmative or not, by carrying out scrutiny of the evidence which has been led at the trial and A2 ex- amined himself as DW.1 and his brother examined as DW.2/deleted A3.

30.After upon a careful perusal of Ex.P15 and Ex.P19 i.e., Cheque of

Rs.1,24,000/- and Rs.2,20,160/-, it is revealed that it bears signature of the ac- cused A2 and same was admitted by DW.2 and FSL report also shown, Ex.P16 :26: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 and Ex.P20 are the cheque return memos which reveals that Ex.P15 and Ex.P19 were dishonored, Ex.P21 is the office copy of Statutory notice, which reveals that legal notice was prepared by the learned counsel for complainant, Ex.P22, P22-A to P22-B and Ex.P23 are the postal receipts of Registered Post and Ex.P24 and

Ex.P25 are Return Covers. However, in the instant case accused No.2 examined himself as DW.1 and said that it is the deleted Accused No.3 who is his elder brother conducted the business with complainant company and it is the deleted

Accused No.3 who has given cheques to the complainant company. Whereas

DW.2 who is the deleted Accused No.3 has stated that it is Accused No.2 who conducted the business with complainant company and he is nothing to do with the present transaction. In chief examination of DW.2 he stated that when com- pany was made a bank account was created in the name of A1 company and bank provided a cheque book to A2 and it is A2 who signed on all the cheques on cheque book and given the same to him/DW.2 and thereafter, DW.2 handed over the same to the PW.2 towards security purposes. In the case in hand after perusal of the chief examination and cross exmination of DW.1 and DW.2 this

Court finds that the statements of DW.1 and DW.2 are contradictory in nature towards the fact that whether it is DW.1 who conducted the business with the complainant or whether it is DW.2 who conducted the business with the com- plainant. Moreover this Court finds that in chief examination of DW.2 he ac- cepted that it is the Accused No.2 who signed on all the cheques and after com- paring the testimony of DW.1 and DW.2 this Court finds that there is no doubt about the presence of signatures of A2 on the cheques and the same was vali- dated by the FSL report also. In the case in hand nowhere in the chief examina- tion of DW.1 and DW.2 or cross examination of DW.1 and DW.2, no where de- nied the executions of the cheques or presence of signatures of A2 on the cheques and moreover nowhere denying the existence of present legal enforce- able debt. In the case in hand after perusal of the exhibits marked on behalf of :27: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022

DW.1 and DW.2, this Court finds that all the exhibits are routine slips but no where this Court finds that it was made for present transaction. After perusal of the exhibits D.1 to D.8, this Court finds that all those exhibits were executed and issued much prior before this transaction. In the case in hand since the accused No.2 failed to pay the entire due amount and on paying that amount he issued Ex.P15 and Ex.P19. In the case in hand since A2 failed to justify the sit- uation that how their cheques were landed into the custody of complainant and not produced any document or any evidence which is going to prove that he has paid the amount mentioning the cheques or whether the cheques were not given for the present transaction. In the cross examination of DW.1/A2, he accepted that he opened the account in the name of A1 and DW.2 deposed that ater sign- ing the cheques, DW.1/A2 handed over the same to him/DW.2, it is itself is con- tradictory. In the case in hand DW.2 is saying that he is given cheques to PW.2 for security purpose, whereas DW.1 is saying it is DW.2 who handed over cheques to complainant is a major contradiction. In the case in hand DW.1 is saying it is DW.2 who forged his signature, but whether DW.1 filed any com- plaint against DW.2. In the case in hand DW.2 said DW.1 after signing cheques handed over the same to DW.2. This version of defence in itself is contradictory.

In the case in hand, DW.2 accepted that he act on behalf of A1 company and both related with complainant company. In the case in hand DW.1 saying that he filed complaint against complainant in PS Amberpet but failed to file any doc- ument regarding the same. In the case in hand, relation with complainant not denied, signature on cheque not denied, execution of cheque not denied, legal notice not denied, legal enforceable debt not denied, hence all essential compo- nents of Sec.138 of NI Act fully fulfilled. All Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant fully corroborated towards the fact that Negotiable Instrument is given to complainant for legally enforceable debt and subsequently it has been bounced/dishonored and committed the offence.

:28: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022

31.After perusal of the whole record including the statement under Section 251 Cr.P.C and when answers given in Section 313 Cr.P.C and in view of the above discussion as well as no contradiction is found in the statement given by

PW.1 and PW.2 and the defence version taken by the accused at the time of trial and at the time of oral argument is devoid of any merit and liable to be rejected.

32.In the considered opinion of the Court, a mere contradiction in the state- ment of the complainant is not enough to disprove the case of the complainant in entirety. Moreover, in the instant case testimony of DW.1 and DW.2 are found contradictory in nature and both DW.1 and DW.2 are not supporting their ver- sion and nowhere denying the basic components of Section 138 of NI Act i.e., is- suance of cheque and signature of cheque.

33.Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this argument of Ld. counsel for the accused at the stage of final arguments appears only a belated attempt to cast some doubt on the case of the complainant which is devoid of any merits and is liable to be rejected. In the case in hand, accused No.1 and 2 has miser- ably failed to lead or prove his defence version for the reasons as discussed.

Hence, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption raised against him u/s 139 r/w 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act in present case.

34.Learned Counsel for the accused never asked questions to PW.1 and PW.2 that whether the cheque in question was given as blank signed security cheque to the complainant or whether the cheques were had been misused by the com- plainant and putting mere suggestions without leading any evidence is of no use, it is a bare statement and does not shake the credit of witness. However in the case in hand the statement and evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 are found cor- roboratory in nature and the statement and evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 are found contradictory in nature and both DW.1 and DW.2 are not supporting their :29: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 own contention by sticking on one story i.e., whether it is DW.1 who conducted the business with complainant or whether it is DW.2 who conducted the busi- ness with complainant.

35.In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the all accused could not raise a probable defence in order to rebut the pre- sumption under section 139 r/w section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act.

The complainant disclosed the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability vide the cheque in question, return memo, legal notice and other documents brought on record. There is sufficient material on record to conclude that com- plainant has successfully proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.

36.Accordingly, the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Typed to my dictation to Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 05 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-

VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HYDERABAD.

37. Though as per section 255 of Criminal Procedure Code, hearing of the accused on the quantum of sentence is not within the ambit of the said section. Though the section does not manifest on hearing of the accused on quantum of sentence, still this court is of an opinion that the accused must be given an opportunity for hearing him on the quantum of sentence while imposing punishment in the interest of Justice and to meet the ends of justice.

38. The accused A2 heard on quantum of sentence, he stated that he is working as a Government Employee in Panchayatraj Department and he is having old aged parents, wife and two children and one is 9 months baby :30: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022 boy and he is the only earning person to look after his entire family and pleaded mercy and prayed this court to take a lenient view.

39. The two cheques amounts in this case is for Rs.3,44,160/- and twice the amount of cheque would come to Rs.6,88,320/-.

40. In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and consequently

A1 and A2 are convicted U/sec.255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Accordingly, A2 being managing partner of A1 sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One (01) year and A2 also sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) for both the cheques i.e., Ex.P15 and Ex.P19 to the complainant within one (01) month and in default of payment of fine, A2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six (06) months. The bail bonds of the accused A2 shall remain in force for the period of Six (6) months in terms of section 437-A of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Office is directed to furnish a free copy of this

Judgment to the accused A1 and A2 under proper acknowledgment as per

Sec.363 Cr.P.C r/w Rule 72 of Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular

Orders, 1990. No order as to property.

Typed to my dictation to Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 05 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-

VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HYDERABAD.

A PPENDIX O F E VIDENCE

W ITNESSES E XAMINED

F OR C OMPLAINANT

PW1 -Smt.G.Ganga Lakshmi

PW2 - G. Ramulu :31: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022

F OR D EFENSE

DW.1 -K. Chandrasekhar Reddy

DW.2 -K. Shisupal Reddy

E XHIBITS M ARKED

F OR C OMPLAINANT :

Ex.P1 :Credit Memo No. 12369 for Rs.38,560/- dt.05.03.2012.

Ex.P2 :Cheque bearing No. 653575 for Rs.38,560/-, dt.04.07.2012.

Ex.P3 :Credit memo No. 12395 for Rs.48,400/- dt.17.06.2012.

Ex.P4 :Cheque bearing No. 653302 for Rs.24,000/- dt.02.07.2012.

Ex.P5 :Cheque bearing No.653303 for Rs.24,000/- dt.04.07.2012.

Ex.P6 :Credit memo No. 12396 for Rs.44,600/- dt.17.06.2012.

Ex.P7 :Cheque bearing No. 653304 for Rs.22,200/- dt.06.07.2012.

Ex.P8 :Cheque bearing No. 653305 for Rs.22,200/- dt.07.07.2012.

Ex.P9 :Credit Memo No.12398 for Rs.44,400/- dt.19.06.2012.

Ex.P10:Cheque bearing No. 653306 for Rs.22,200/- dt.08.07.2012.

Ex.P11:Cheque bearing No. 653307 for Rs.22,200/- dt.10.07.2012.

Ex.P12:Credit Memo No. 12427 for Rs.32,200/- dt.28.06.2012.

Ex.P13:Credit Memo No.12428 for Rs.44,000/-, dt.28.06.2012.

Ex.P14:Credit Memo No.12449 for Rs.47,800/-, dt.02.07.2012.

Ex.P15:Cheque bearing No.653310 for Rs.1,24,000/- dt.27.03.2013.

Ex.P16:Cheque Return Memo issued by the Deccan Grameena Bank, Bagh Amberpet branch, dt.16.04.2013.

Ex.P17:Credit memo No.12468 for Rs.46,800/- dt.11.07.2012.

Ex.P18:Credit Memo No.12494 for Rs.49,800/- dt.25.07.2012.

Ex.P19:Cheque bearing No.653311 for Rs.2,20,160/- dt.27.03.2013.

Ex.P20:Cheque Return Memo dt.15.04.2013.

Ex.P21:Office copy of the Statutory Notice, dt.08.05.2013.

Ex.P22:Original Postal Receipt of the Registered Post.

Ex.P22-A : Original Postal Receipt of the Registered Post.

Ex.P22-B : Original Postal Receipt of the Registered Post.

Ex.P23:Acknowledgment Card.

Ex.P24:Returned Cover.

Ex.P25:Return Cover.

Ex.P26:VAT Registration Certificate issued by the CTO, Malakpet, dt.19.01.2009.

Ex.P27:VAT Registration Certificate issued by the CTO, Malakpet, dt.16.02.2015.

:32: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No.17172 of 2022

Ex.P28:Sales Tax returns for the month of June 2012 dt.05.07.2012.

Ex.P29:Sales Tax Returns for the month of July 2012 dt.04.08.2012.

Ex.P30:Day to day Sale Register pertaining to the said period.

Ex.P30-A : Relevant Entry in page No.10, in Sl.No.10.

Ex.P30-B : Relevant Entry in Page No.11, in Sl.No.36, 37, 39, 68.

Ex.P30-C : Relevant Entry in Page No.12, in Sl.No. 69.

Ex.P30-D : Relevant entry in Page No.13, in Sl. No. 3, 29.

Ex.P30-E : Relevant Entry in Page No.14, in Sl. No. 53.

For Accused:

Ex.D1 :Receipt No.89 dated 28.01.2012

Ex.D2 :Receipt No.12345 dated 24.05.2012.

Ex.D3 :Receipt No.12350 dated 28.05.2012.

Ex.D4 :Cash Receipt for Rs.22,200/- dated 09.07.2012.

Ex.D5 :Cash Receipt for Rs.30,000/- dated 01.09.2012.

Ex.D6 :Cash Receipt for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 25.07.2012.

Ex.D7 :Cash Receipt for Rs.46,800/- dated 12.07.2012.

Ex.D8 :Cash Receipt for Rs.35,422/- dated 13.05.2002.

Sd/-

VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HYDERABAD

//True Copy//

:1: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MANORANJAN COMPLEX, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri. Jitin Kumar VII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad

Thursday, 22 nd day of January, 2026

CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022

(Old CC No. 183/2018 on the file of I Special Magistrate Court, Hyderabad)

BETWEEN:

B. Laxmi Narasimha Reddy, S/o: Late B. Ramana Reddy, Aged about 72 yrs, Occ: Retired Government Employee, R/o: Flat No. 402, Sai Heights Apartment, H.No. 1-5-3/2, Road No.8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

...Complainant.

AND

A. Konda reddy, Flat No. 501, Kamala Rainbow Vista Apartment, H.No. 8-4-17/SR/501, Sai Ram Nagar Colony, Champapet, Hyderabad – 500 079, Telangana.

and also at A. Konda Reddy Plot No. 121, H.No. 8-4-17/121, Sai Ram Nagar Colony,

Champapet, Saroornagar, Hyderabad – 500 079. ...Accused

Offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Jagan Mohan Reddy & Associates, Counsel for the Complainant and of Sri.A.Sanjay, Counsel for Accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed against the above named accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter be referred to as N.I.Act.

The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:

2.That the complainant submits that the accused is the friend of his brother-in-law, as such both are well acquainted with each other and taking the advantage of such relationship, accused used to take hand loans from complainant and thereby accused had developed confidence by repaying the :2: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 amounts on time. Complainant further submits that the accused was running chit fund business in the name and style of M.S. Sadasiva Chits and due to the said acquaintance with the complainant, accused requested the complainant to subscribe the amount towards chits run by him and accordingly complainant has joined as a member by subscribing amount in two chits worth of Rs. 5.00 lakhs and another of Rs.2.00 lakhs on monthly payment basis and complainant in the confidence and on the strength of assurance of accused, complainant has paid monthly subscriptions/installments from July, 2015 onwards and the same was acknowledged by the accused by signing on the chit fund card of M.S.

Sadasiva Chits. Complainant further submits that complainant has paid total 20 monthly installments in respect of Rs.2.00 lakh chit and matured chit amount of Rs. 1,92,000/- was due to be paid to the complainant as on 05.02.2017 and other chit amount of Rs.9,60,000/- was due on 05.07.2017 in respect of two Rs.5.00 lakhs chit and total amount due to the complainant by the accused is for Rs.11,52,000/-. Complainant further submits that complainant had to put his continuous efforts to release the chit amount due from accused till 1st week of September, 2017 and in lieu of that payment accused had issued a cheque B.No. 206337 dated 05.09.2017 drawn on Bank of

Maharasthra, Champapet Branch, Hyderabad for an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs and agreed to pay the remaining balance amount of Rs. 1,52,000/- in cash and further accused instructed the complainant to present the cheque for encashment and further assured complainant that the cheque will be honoured on its presentation. Complainant further submits that the complainant approached the accused to return the entire due amount on 05.09.2017 before presenting the said cheque with his bank, but accused requested for some more time till the 2nd week of November, 2017. Thereafter, complainant has gained the confidence and agreed to present the said cheque in his bank on 21.11.2017 for encashment and when the complainant presented the said cheque for :3: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 encashment the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘Funds insufficient’ vide cheque return memo dated 28.11.2017. Thereafter complainant got issued the legal notice dated 18.12.2017 on the address of the accused and the said Postal cover returned with an endorsement ‘Party left without intimation’ and thereafter complainant served the notice to the accused through email. Complainant further submits that even after receiving the notice accused failed to reply to the said legal notice and further failed to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque. Hence the complaint.

3.The complainant filed the complaint before the Hon’ble IV Add. Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 03.02.2018 and numbered as CC. No.

648 of 2018. As per the proceedings of Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the case was transferred to I Special Magistrate Court, Hyderabad and re-numbered as CC No.183/2018. Again after abolition of Special Magistrate Courts, this case was transferred to this Court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and re-numbered as CC-NI No.17339/ 2022.

4. Upon the appearance of the accused, he was provided with a copy of the complaint and other relevant documents under Section 207 of the Code of Crim- inal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Thereafter accused was examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., in which he reported that he is not running any chit fund business.

The chits mentioned by the complainant are false and he is not due any amount to the complainant and further all the story of the complainant is false. And fur- ther pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offence. Further no defence statement was filed on behalf of accused and matter was put for trial.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant examined himself as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 as documentary evidence. Ex.P1 is the

Cheque bearing No.206337, dt.05.09.2017 for Rs.10.00 Lakhs, Ex.P2 is the

Cheque Return Memo, dt.28.11.2017, Ex.P3 is the Office copy of Legal :4: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022

Notice, dt.18.12.2017, Ex.P4 is the RPAD Postal Receipt, dt.19.12.2017,

Ex.P5 is the RPAD Returned Cover, Dt.22.12.2017, Ex.P6 is the RPAD Postal

Receipt, Dt.19.12.2017, Ex.P7 is the RPAD Returned Cover, Dt.22.12.2017,

Ex.P8 is the Sada Shiva Chit Card for Rs.05.00 Lakhs, Ex.P9 is the Sada

Shiva Chit Crd for Rs.05.00 Lakhs, Ex.P10 is the Sada Shiva Chit Card for

Rs.02.00 Lakhs, Ex.P11 is the Bank Statement from 02.09.2015 to 28.06.2017 issued by SBI, OU Branch, Hyderabad, pertaining to SB A/c of

Complainant, Ex.P12 is the Attested Xerox copy of FIR No. 683/2017, dt.22.09.2017 issued by P.S. Saroornagar, Ex.P13 is the unattested e-mail copy sent to the son of accused issued by counsel for complainant, dt.

20.12.2017, Ex.P14 is the certified xerox copy of Sale Deed No. 2341/2016 executed by accused as Managing Partner at H.No.8-4-17/121, Sairamnagar

Colony, Champapet, Saroornagar, Hyderabad, Ex.P15 is the certified xerox copy of RPAD envelop, dt.30.10.2017, Ex.P16 is the certified xerox copy of

RPAD envelop dt.27.10.2017, Ex.P17 is the certified xerox copy of RPAD envelop dt.30.10.2017, Ex.P18 is the certified xerox copy of RPAD envelop dt.09.10.2017, Ex.P19 is the certified xerox copy of Judgment of conviction to the accused A.Konda Reddy, R/o. Flat No.501, Champapet, awarded by

VIII Spl. Magistrate, L.B Nagar, in CC No.15/2018 dated 14.03.2019, Ex.P20 is the certified xerox copy of Judgment of conviction to the accused A.Konda

Reddy, R/o. Flat No.501, Champapet, awarded by VIII Spl. Magistrate, L.B

Nagar, in CC No. 6/2018 dt.07.05.2019, Ex.P21 is the certified xerox copy of

Judgment of conviction to the accused A.Konda Reddy R/o. Flat No.501,

Champapet, awarded by VIII Spl. Magistrate, L.B Nagar, in CC No.180/2018 dt.14.06.2019, Ex.P22 is the certified xerox copy of Judgment of conviction to the accused A.Konda Reddy, R/o.Flat No.501, Champapet, awarded by

VIII Spl. Magistrate, L.B Nagar, in CC No.181/2018 dt.14.06.2019, Ex.P23 is the CC of registered Gift deed No.7950/2017 dated 11.09.2017 registered at :5: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022

SRO–Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy district by Respondent/Accused, Ex.P24 is the CC of Registered Sale Deed No. 8039/ 2017 dated 13.09.2017 registered at SRO–Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy district by Respondent/

Accused, Ex.P25 is the CC of Sale Deed No. 6185/ 2017 dated 28.08.2017 executed by Accused wife Smt.A.Veena along with Smt.D. Sreelatha, W/o.

D.narasimha Rao at SRO–Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy, in favour of

Chinthakunta Janardhan Reddy, S/o. C. Narayana Reddy, Ex.P26 is the CC of sale deed No. 6447/2017 dated 04.09.2017 executed by Accused wife

Smt.A.Veena at SRO- Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, representing her brother C. Anil Reddy, R/o. H.No.9-77, Shantinagar, Dilsukhnagar,

Hyderabad, in favour of her brother-in-law Madhusudhan Reddy Nyalapatla,

Ex.P27 is the CC of sale deed No. 6448/ 2017 dated 04.09.2017 executed by

Accused wife Smt.A.Veena at SRO - Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, representing her brother C. Anil Reddy, R/o. H.No.9-77, Shantinagar,

Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, in favour of her brother-in-law Madhusudhan

Reddy Nyalapatla, Ex.P28 is the CC of sale deed No. 6449 of 2017 dated 04.09.2017 executed by Accused wife Smt.A. Veena at SRO–Ibrahimpatnam,

Ranga Reddy District, representing her brother C.Anil Reddy, R/o.H.No.9- 77, Shantinagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, in favour of her brother-in-law

Madhusudhan Reddy Nyalapatla, Ex.P29 is the CC of sale deed No.

7951/2017 dt.11.09.2017 executed by Accused wife Smt.A.Veena at SRO–

Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District and during cross examination of PW.1 learned counsel for accused got marked Ex.D1 – Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.12.09.2017 and Ex.D2 – Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.16.06.2016 and further no witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant.

6. PW.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the Accused and further reported no evidence on complainant side. After the closure of the :6: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 complainant’s evidence, Accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and reported that he do not know PW.1 and he has not taken any thing from PW.1 and he do not run any chit fund business and not given any cheque to PW.1 and further he given cheque to one Janardhan Reddy for security purpose and further reported that whole story of the prosecution is false and further reported defence evidence and subsequently on reporting of no defence evidence basing on that this Court has closed the defence evidence and the matter was put for final arguments and subsequently written arguments filed by both sides.

7. Heard the arguments on behalf of both sides and perused the written arguments along with record. After carefully hearing the arguments presented by both sides, the following points arise for determination:

Now the point for determination is that

(i)whether the cheque in question was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable liability or not;

(ii)whether the cheque was presented before the bank for encash ment within six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier or not;

(iii)whether demand is made in writing by the payee or holder in due course by the issuance of a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of information from the bank of the return of the cheques or not; and

(iv)whether there is failure of the drawer to make the payment of the cheque amount to the payee or the holder in due course within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or not.

8.The short facts of the case are that accused was running chit fund business in the name and style of M.S. Sadasiva Chits and due to the said acquaintance with the complainant, accused requested the complainant to subscribe the amount towards chits run by him and accordingly complainant has joined as a member by subscribing amount in two chits worth of Rs. 5.00 lakhs and another of Rs.2.00 lakhs on monthly payment basis and complainant in the confidence and on the strength of assurance of accused, complainant has :7: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 paid monthly subscriptions/installments from July, 2015 onwards and the same was acknowledged by the accused by signing on the chit fund card of M.S.

Sadasiva Chits and complainant has paid total 20 monthly installments in respect of Rs.2.00 lakh chit and matured chit amount of Rs. 1,92,000/- was due to be paid to the complainant as on 05.02.2017 and other chit amount of

Rs.9,60,000/- was due on 05.07.2017 in respect of two Rs.5.00 lakhs chit and total amount due to the complainant by the accused is for Rs. 11,52,000/-. and complainant had to put his continuous efforts to release the chit amount due from accused till 1st week of September, 2017 and in lieu of that payment accused had issued a cheque B.No. 206337 dated 05.09.2017 drawn on Bank of

Maharasthra, Champapet Branch, Hyderabad for an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs and agreed to pay the remaining balance amount of Rs. 1,52,000/- in cash and further after presenting the cheque to the bank, the same was dishonoured.

9.In chief examination of PW.1, he reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and legal notice and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P29. In cross- examination of PW.1, he stated that he was retired from service in the year 2011 and he is earning pension. PW.1 further stated that when accused started chit fund company, accused used to obtain loans from PW.1 and repaid the amounts also. PW.1 further stated that accused started the company in Sairam Nagar,

Champapet, Hyderbad, and accused is the Proprietor of the Firm and further

PW.1 has not filed any document that accused is the Proprietor of the Firm, but

PW.1 further added that he subscribed three cheques in the said firm and PW.1 joined one chit of Rs.2.00 lakh in the year 2015 and in two chits of Rs.5.00

Lakhs each in December 2015 and regarding above chits, no whisper made either in the complaint or in chief examination. PW.1 further stated that he has not filed chit subscription documents. PW.1 further stated that he used to pay subscription amounts by way of cash and prior to the chits there were :8: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 transactions in between PW.1 and accused and after completion of chit period

PW.1 went to the accused for repayment and on that accused issued a cheque on 05.09.2017 but the said amount was not available in his bank. PW.1 further stated that the cheque was issued for Rs.10,00,000/- and for balance amount accused promised to pay later. PW.1 further stated that he do not know who subscribed the subject cheque and PW.1 do not know whether the cheque is having four digit account number. PW.1 further stated that he has not issued any notice in writing to the accused for payment of balance amount. PW.1 further stated that when he informed about bouncing of cheque, accused stated that whenever he receives funds, he would make payment. PW.1 further stated that he do not know email address to which legal notice was sent, PW.1 is not an income tax assessee. PW.1 further stated that Ex.P11 bank statement of an amount of Rs.17,927/- is shown as his pension and credited into his account.

PW.1 further stated that as on 01.11.2016 his pension increased to Rs.22,302/- and further increased to Rs.23,116/-. PW.1 further stated that Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 refers to the figure found printed Zero is added with pen in all the columns pertaining to the amount. PW.1 further stated that Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 i.e., cards, his name is not mention and the names of Shipa and Anya was there, in

Ex.P8 the name of PW.1 is mentioned. PW.1 further stated that he has not mention that Shilpa and Anya used to subscribe the chits and monthly subscription of all three cheques under Ex.P8 to P10 crossed Rs.36,000/- per month. PW.1 further stated that no documents are filed which shows that Sada

Shiv Chits is a proprietary concerned and signatory found on first page of Ex.P8 to P10 is of accused and there is different in the signature of accused found in

Ex.P1 i.e., cheque and in Ex.P14 i.e., Mee Seva Sale Deed copy and memo of appearance. PW.1 further stated that there are two different addresses in Ex.P6 and as per the certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.09.2017 the flat No.501,

Kamala Rainbow Vista Apartment was sold by the accused and after confronting :9: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 the document PW.1 stated that accused was residing in the said address and legal notice was sent to the same address. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.09.2017. PW.1 further stated that plot No.121 of Sairam Nagar

Colony, Karmanghat Village, was sold by the accused under the document i.e.,

Sale Deed dated 16.06.2016 i.e., Ex.D2. PW.1 further stated that legal notice was returned on the ground that party left and in the email notice, the cheque number, date and amount are not mentioned. PW.1 further stated that as he stated that accused was introduced to him by his brother-in-law who is the counsel in this case and present in the Court and the name of the counsel is

Janardhan Reddy. PW.1 further stated that there is a different in the address mentioned in the complaint, chief examination affidavit with one mention in the summons. PW.1 further stated that he do not know whether accused is not residing in the two (02) addresses where two legal notices were sent. Further he do not know whether accused received the legal notice or not. PW.1 further stated that in Ex.P11 there is no mentioning about payment made to the accused, PW.1 further added that he used to draw the amounts from bank and paid towards the chits and PW.1 received the amount of Rs.21,00,000/- towards his retirement benefits. PW.1 further stated that Ex.P14 shows that accused did

Real estate and construction business and address mentioned in legal notice is also found in Ex.P14. PW.1 further stated that the accused handed over the subject cheque to him at his house and he deposited the subject cheque after two months. PW.1 further stated that prior to depositing of cheque, accused has not stated any thing regarding the payment and due to which PW.1 deposited the cheque for twise and PW.1 do not remember the date of presentation. PW.1 further stated that he also filed certified copy of the judgment of various courts of the accused in various courts for the purpose of address proof and he do not know whether accused was not in India when cheque was deposited, legal notice was issued and complaint filed. PW.1 further :10: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 stated that he filed Ex.P23 to P29 to show that accused is residing in the address mentioned and only in Ex.P23 and Ex.P24 accused is the party and in remaining documents, accused is not the party. PW.1 further added that in remaining documents, wife of the accused, sister of the accused are parties and wife of the accused and sister of the accused are not party to the present case.

PW.1 further stated that he did not give any intimation to the accused at the time of presentation of subject cheque and some suggestions were put by learned counsel for accused.

10.In the case in hand after closing the evidence of complainant, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he stated that “he has not given the cheque to PW.1 and further reported that he has given cheque to Janardhan Reddy for security purpose and further reported whole of the complainant case is false and in the end and further reported defence evidence, but due to the non production of defence evidence, the defence evidence was closed and thereafter, the matter was put for final arguments and further both sides has presented the written arguments as well as oral arguments and matter for put for judgment.

11.I have gone through the entire record and carefully perused the evidence lead by the complainant only but before appreciating the facts of the case at length for arriving at any conclusion let the relevant position of law will discuss first :-

Before finding the conviction of the accused u/s 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, it has to be established by the complainant cumulatively that :

(i) the cheque in question was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable liability; :11: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022

(ii)the cheque was presented before the bank for encashment within six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(iii)a demand is made in writing by the payee or holder in due course by the issuance of a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of information from the bank of the return of the cheques; and

(iv)there is failure of the drawer to make the payment of the cheque amount to the payee or the holder in due course within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice.

12.This legal position was discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in case titled as MSR Leathers vs. S. Palaniappan (2013) 1 SCC 177, wherein it was held that, “6.……. The proviso to Section 138, however, is all important and stipulates three distinct conditions precedent, which must be satisfied before the dishonour of a cheque can constitute an offence and become punishable. The first condition is that the cheque ought to have been presented to the bank within a pe- riod of s i x months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. The sec- ond condition is that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, ought to make 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 re- ceipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. The third condition is that the drawer of such a cheque should have failed to make 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 re- ceipt of the said notice. It is only upon the satisfaction of all the three conditions mentioned above and enumerated under the proviso to Section 138 as clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof that an offence under Section 138 can be said to have been com- mitted by the person issuing the cheque.

13.This Court shall now examine if the aforesaid four ingredients as described in the forgoing paragraph have been duly satisfied in this case or not.

That whether the cheque in dispute was presented within the period of its valid- ity or not has not been disputed by the accused at any stage of trial. In the case :12: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 in hand since there is no dispute or any examination of witness by the accused regarding the validity period of the cheque which is presented before the Bank and in this case after perusal also this Court finds that the cheque was pre- sented before the Bank within the statutory period. In the case in hand since there is no evidence placed on record by the accused to contradict or to disprove the validity period of the cheque. Accordingly, condition no. (ii), as above stands satisfied and in favour of the complainant.

14.In the present matter, accused has not accepted the receiving of statutory legal demand notice at the time of arguments. However, the position of law in this regard is no longer resintegra and even if the version of the accused is be- lieved that no legal notice was served upon him then also accused cannot take any advantage on account of nonservice of statutory legal notice as he had the due notice of the pendency of present complaint case against him and despite which he had failed to make payment of cheque amount in question to the com- plainant. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, in case of C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty

Muhammed , (2007) 6 SCC 555, wherein it has been held as follows:

“ It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of sum- mons from the court in respect of the complaint un- der Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of sum- mons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the General :13: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022

Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As ob- served in Bhaskarans case (supra), if the giving of notice in the context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of notice a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act.

Accordingly, conditions No.(iii) and (iv) as above also stands satisfied in favour of the complainant as it is matter of record that accused had due notice of the pendency of the present complaint case and despite which he failed to make the payment of cheque in question to the complainant.

15.It is now only remains to be seen for the point No.(i) whether the accused issued the cheque in question i.e., Ex.P1 Cheque bearing No.206337 dated 05.09.2017 for Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the complainant in order to dis- charge his legally enforceable liability or not.

16.Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e. Complainant in the present case, as soon as the execu- tion of cheque is proved. Firstly, under Section 118 (a) N.I. Act, with respect to the consideration that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for con- sideration and when such instrument has been accepted, transferred, negoti- ated or endorsed was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consider- ation. Secondly, a presumption under section 139 N.I. Act that it shall be pre- sumed that the holder of cheque received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability unless contrary is proved.

Section 118 (a) of the N.I. Act provides :

“Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. —Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:

of consideration —that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; :14: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022

Section 139 of the N.I. Act further provides as follows :-

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

However, both the aforesaid presumptions are rebuttable in nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Basalingappa Vs.

Mudibasappa, Crl. Appeal No.636 of 2019 , (2019) 5 SCC 418: The same is produced as under :

23. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a) and139, we now summarise the princi- ples enumerated by this Court in following manner:

(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the dis- charge of any debt or other liability.

(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presump- tion and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable de- fence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.

(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable de- fence. 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.

(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the wit- ness box in support of his defence,Section 139 imposed an evi- dentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.

17.As per the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned Judgment, the presumptions u/s 118(a) read with Section 139 of the

Act has to be compulsorily raised against the accused once execution of cheque by the accused is either admitted by him, or is proved by the complainant, and thereafter the burden is shifted upon accused to prove otherwise. These pre- sumptions shall be rebutted only when the contrary is proved by the accused i.e., the cheque was not issued for any consideration, or in discharge of any debt or liability.

:15: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022

18.In the instant case, accused has not admitted his signature on the cheque in question and issuance of the cheque, in answer to notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C as well as in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In the case in hand after perusal of the examinations done by this Court on accused and on each and ev- ery questions accused has said that everything is false, he has not issued the cheque, he has not signed the cheque and whole story of the prosecution is false and whatever PW.1 said that is also false but nowhere accused was telling about how his cheque was landed into the custody of the complainant. Giving an- swers under examination by saying that every story of the prosecution is false without leading any material or evidence before the Court is of no use. So at each and every point of examination, accused said whole story of the prosecu- tion is false and he has nothing to do with the transaction. After perusal of the file, this court finds that accused though in Sec.313 Cr.P.C said that he intend to lead the evidence but after further perusal, this Court finds that no evidence had been lead on behalf of Accused.

19.In the case in hand question arises whether the cheque was given for legal enforceable debt. In the case in hand contention of the complainant is that in the chit fund business of the accused, complainant invested some money and for returning the money, accused issued the cheque. In the case in hand com- plainant produced chit fund receipts along with his contention and relationship with the complainant and of accused nowhere been denied. In the case in hand in written arguments, accused has said that he has not given the subject cheque to the complainant but complainant misused it. In the case in hand it is the contention of the complainant that he invested the money in the chit fund business of the accused and documents were produced in the form of chit fund receipts which shows that there is some business transaction happened with the complainant and the accused. In the case in hand accused saying in :16: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022

Sec.251 Cr.P.C that he has not given the cheque to the complainant and in

Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination he is saying that he has given cheque to one Ja- nardhan Reddy but no where denying about chit fund transaction happened with the complainant.

20.In the case in hand, after perusal of the file, this Court finds that PW.1 has stated that he with the acquaintance with Accused who was running the chit fund business and in the chit fund business of the accused, PW.1 has in- vested an amount of Rs.11,52,000/- into the chit fund business of the accused and thereafter, for paying back of the amount, accused had issued Ex.P1 cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- and further Rs.1,52,000/- to be paid in cash. In the case in hand PW.1 in cross examination also saying that the whole transaction occurred at the residence of the complainant and nowhere in the cross examination noth- ing has been asked regarding the disproval of the same. In the case in hand af- ter perusal of whole record this Court finds that accused failed to gave any rea- sonable explanation regarding the fact that how his cheques were landed into the custody of complainant and if their cheques were lost some where whether they have filed any complaint before any proper authority. After perusal of the complaint, chief examination affidavit and cross examination and exhibits marked, this Court finds that complainant has produced the business transac- tion receipts with the accused and for which Ex.P1 i.e., Cheque which has been issued by the accused to the complainant. In the case in hand in written argu- ments of accused, he is saying that complainant has misused the cheque which was given in connection with some other transaction. But accused no where produced any document or any evidence which is going to show that the cheque was issued for some other transaction. In the case in hand at the time of

Sec.251 Cr.P.C examination accused said that he has not given cheque to the complainant thereafter in Sec.313 Cr.P.C accused said that he has given cheque to one person namely Janardhan Reddy and at the time of submitting written :17: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 arguments, accused said that the complainant has misused the Ex.P1 i.e., cheque which was given in connection with some other transaction. It shows that version of the accused changed at all three stages.

21.After perusing the Section 251 Cr.P.C examination and Sec.313 Cr.P.C ex- amination this Court finds that in Sec.251 Cr.P.C examination he is saying that he has not done any chit fund business and whole story of the prosecution is false and whereas in Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination he is saying that he do not know PW.1 and he has handed over the cheque to one Janardhan Reddy and that to for security purpose. In the case in hand after further perusal this

Court finds that since no defence evidence is produced on behalf of the accused.

In the case in hand it is a story of prosecution that accused handed over the cheque to the complainant and now accused in Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination say- ing that he has not given the cheque to the complainant but to one Janardhan

Reddy, so now it is the duty of the accused to prove the same by leading any oral or documentary evidence but in the case in hand no defence evidence was filed by the accused and the only lead by the accused is answers given under Sec.

251 Cr.P.C and Sec.313 Cr.P.C examinations. In the case in hand, in Sec.251

Cr.P.C examination accused never stated that he has given the cheque to one

Janardhan Reddy for security purpose but major improvement is seen in

Sec.313 Cr.P.C where accused stated that he do not know PW.1 and given cheque to one Janardhan Reddy for security purpose. In the case in hand the improvement made by the testimony of the accused while under examinations is contradictory in nature and found no tail and head. After finding no reasonable answer from accused regarding the fact that how his cheque was landed in to the custody of complainant and simply saying that he has given cheque to one

Janardhan Reddy without producing any witness or any documentary evidence is of no use. After perusing the cheque and chit fund receipts, this Court finds :18: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 that complainant has invested some money in the chit fund business of the ac- cused and to reimburse the invested money, accused issued the Ex.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant to discharge his liability. In the case in hand, this

Court is of view that valid consideration in this case is giving back payment by accused for which he received from complainant in the form of installments re- ceived in his chit fund business.

22.After further perusal this Court finds that and in view of the forgoing discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that a presumption u/s 139 r/w Section 118(a) N.I. Act can duly be raised against the accused by say- ing that Negotiable Instrument was made and drawn for consideration and the cheques were received for the discharge of debt liability. Accordingly point No.(i) is stands satisfied in favour of the complainant.

23.Since the above said two presumptions has been duly raised against the accused our next point of determination is that whether the accused is able to rebut the above said presumptions or not. It is now a settled law that accused can rebut these presumption on a scale of standard of pre ponderance of proba- bilities, and to rebut these presumptions it is open for the accused to rely upon the direct evidence lead by himself, or in the exceptional cases, the accused can also rely on materials submitted by the complainant i.e. (statutory notice, evidence etc.) during the trial in order to raise a probable defence. Reliance in this regard, can be placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC.

“……………………………Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, …, it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. "It in- troduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the ac- :19: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 cused" (ibid). Such a presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which de- scribes provisions by which the court "may presume" a cer- tain state of affairs. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond rea- sonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact un- less the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non existence of the presumed fact. In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exists, no discretion is left with the Court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, "after considering the matters be- fore it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the suppo- sition that it exists". Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be ad- duced before the Court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of rea- sonability being that of the 'prudent man'.”

24.In the backdrop of legal position as enunciated above, it is now to be ex- amined by this Court that whether the accused on a scale of preponderance of probabilities has been able to rebut the presumptions which has been raised against him and in favour of the complainant, or has been able to demolish the case of the complainant to such extent so as to shift the onus placed upon the accused back again on the complainant, and if the Court comes to the conclu- sion that accused has not been able to rebut the presumptions raised against him by failing to bring on record direct evidence or by even failing to sufficiently perforate the case of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to a decision in his favour.

25.In light of the aforesaid legal position, this Court shall now examine that whether the accused has been able to prove his defence in affirmative or not, by :20: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 carrying out scrutiny of the evidence which has been led at the trial but in the case in hand since there is no evidence has been given from the side of the ac- cused and due to non production of evidence from the side of accused evidence of defence is closed. In the case in hand it is the contention of accused that he had given cheque to one Janardhan Reddy but except saying accused never pro- duced any evidence nor placed any documentary evidence.

26.In the case in hand certain points were raised by the learned counsel for accused, one regarding absence of legally enforceable debt and different state- ments made by the complainant in respect of Ex.P1, but this Court finds that it is a mere improvement which does not go towards the roots of the case and does not shake the credibility of PW.1. Another, non filing of first cheque return memo. In the Negotiable Instrument Cases cheque can be presented any num- ber of times to the bank provided if account is having sufficient money. In the case in hand as cheque were presented twice and non filing of first cheque re- turn memo does not find any meaning because already second presentation cheque return memo is already filed. Another, fraud played by PW.1 in respect to Ex,P3 to Ex.P7 which are legal notice, postal receipts and return postal cov- ers. In the case in hand as accused is contenting the fraud played by PW.1 re- garding the serving of the notices but that has been already settled by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in so many cases by saying that even if legal notice is

not received by the accused but still after coming to the Court he is having full knowledge of bouncing of cheque and despite of that also he failed to pay any payment so committing fraud by the complainant in serving the notice to the ac- cused is devoid of any merits. Another non availability of accused in India, this contention is also devoid of any merits because already accused appeared before this Court and having full knowledge regarding bouncing of cheque and inspite of that also accused failed to pay make any payments. Another material alter- :21: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 ations in Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. After perusal this Court finds that there is overwrit- ing in Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 which are chit fund receipts but that also cannot go to the root of the case as Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are the receipts which shows atleast the relation between complainant and the accused. So it is also devoid of any mer- its. After perusal this Court finds that accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C to substantiate his case and after closure of complainant’s evidence, accused is examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating evidence found against him as deposed by the complainant for which he denied the same and reported defense evidence but no evidence was left and only Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were marked in the cross examination of PW.1. The accused neither come into the witness box nor examined any witness and accused is simply denying the is- suance of Ex.P1. After perusal this Court finds that accused during the entire trial neither disputed nor challenged the signature on the cheque i.e., Ex.P1 and chit receipts i.e., Ex.P8 to Ex.P10 except mere denying the same. In the case in hand this Court finds that accused is mere explaining that he has given cheque to one Janardhan Reddy but that is not sufficient accused must plead and prove his case that Cheque in question is not given for legally enforceable debt by pre- ponderance of probability. It is the duty of the accused to bring on record such facts and such circumstances which may lead to the Court to conclude either the consideration did not exist or its non existence was so probable so that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case act upon the plea that the consideration does not exists and mere denial would not fulfill the require- ment of rebuttal provided U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act. In the case in hand it is the contention of the complainant that the accused is the real estate business men and also a Civil Engineer and having a huge business and it cannot be said that he put his signature on Ex.P1 and chit funds receipts without knowing the contents and in the case in hand accused himself admitted the signature on the cheque. In the case in hand accused was a Gazetted Food Inspector who took :22: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022

VRS and doing chit funds and real estate business with huge business transac- tion and clients. The accused has admitted his signature on Ex.P1 and further stated that cheque is not given to the complainant and complainant misused it and such version is not supported by any evidence oral or documentary and the accused except making suggestions to the complainant that he has not issued the cheque to complainant will not come to his rescue. In the case in hand, ac- cused never choose to enter into the witness box, no independent witness was examined and no cogent documentary evidence is produced to support the ver- sion of the accused. On the other hand complainant produced Ex.P1 ie., cheque amount towards discharge of the amount payable by the complainant under

Ex.P8 to P10.

27.After perusal of the whole record, this Court finds that accused is saying that Ex.P1 Cheque was given in some other transaction and accused miserably failed to lead any oral or documentary evidence regarding the handing over the cheque in some other transaction. In the case in hand this Court finds that no convincing evidence is placed on how the said cheque has traveled from the cus- tody of the accused to the custody of the complainant and why accused has not taken any step to recall the said cheque from the complainant. In the case in hand accused has not disputed the signature on Ex.P1 and accused disputed that Ex.P1 was never given to PW.1 and further accused disputed that Ex.P1 was given for some other transaction and used by the complainant falsely in this case. In the case in hand accused has not explained any circumstances that why he has not taken any steps to recall the cheque from the custody of the complainant or why accused has not taken any action against misusing of cheque by the complainant. After perusal of whole record this Court finds that accused has not placed any single piece of the document before this Court and it create the doubts in the mind of the Court that accused has taken false con- tention in order to escape his liability. Moreover the complainant has placed :23: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 complete material in the form of Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 and proved his case by produc- ing cogent and documentary evidence and accused utterly failed to rebut the same.

28.After upon a careful perusal of Ex.P1 i.e., Cheque of Rs.10,00,000/-, it is revealed that it bears signature of the accused, Ex.P2 is the cheque return memo which reveals that Ex.P1 is dishonored, Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice, which reveals that legal notice was prepared by the learned counsel for complainant, Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 are the postal receipts and postal unclaimed cov- ers. Ex.P8 to Ex.P10 are the chit fund receipts which are going to show that money transaction happened between complainant and the accused and com- plainant invested money in the chit fund business of the accused. Ex.P11 is the bank statement of the complainant. Ex.P12 is the xerox copy of FIR No. 683 / 2017 which going to show that a criminal case in pending against the accused,

Ex.P13 is the e-mail copy. Ex.P14 is the xerox copy of sale deed which is going to show that accused did business transactions with others as well. Ex.P15 to

Ex.P18 are the xerox copy of the RPAD envelop which is going to show that legal notice were sent to accused. Ex.P19 to Ex.P22 are the certified copies of the judgment of convictions given by the Court against accused in various cases in

Negotiable Instrument Act cases which is going to show that accused is in a habit of issuing the cheques despite of having knowledge that cheques will be dishonoured in future. Ex.P23 to Ex.P29 are the documents of the sale deeds which is going to show that accused is having big business in his pocket. How- ever, in the instant case accused neither examined himself as a witness in the court nor not produced any evidence before this Court. After perusal of whole exhibits, this Court finds that the cheque/Ex.P1 was issued for the legal en- forceable debt and subsequently that was dishonored and subsequently the pay- ment of cheque not made. Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 fully corroborated towards the fact that Negotiable Instrument is given to complainant for legally enforceable debt :24: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 and subsequently it has been bounced/dishonored and committed the offence.

In the case in hand, this Court finds that cheque is not disputed, signature is not disputed, executed is disputed but complainant successfully proved the exe- cution by documentary evidence, relationship with accused established and through Ex.P11 it is proved that from retirement savings complainant invested money in chit fund business of the accused and through Ex.P19 to P22 it is also proved that accused is habitual offender since he is already convicted in so many cases. Ex.P1 to P29 fully corroborated towards the fact that offence U/

Sec. 138 of NI Act is committed by accused. After considering the evidence pro- duced arguments filed along with citations of both sides, this Court is of consid- ered view that Ex.P1 is executed for discharge of legal enforceable debt and doc- uments produced finds full corroboration towards the fact that cheque has been issued for valid consideration and that has been supported by relevant docu- ments which from part of transaction and for which no counter allegations, con- frontment, contradiction found. In the case in hand except mere denying the al- legations and mere putting suggestions accused never shake the credit of PW.1.

In the case in hand accused failed to show how cheque which is the most impor- tant document landed into custody of complainant. In NI Act cheque is to be considered so valuable and on cheque book it is clearly written to keep the cheques in safe custody, so how cheques fly from the custody of accused to the custody of complainant no valid or authenticated reason found in this case by this Court. In the case in hand, it is already established through Ex.P19 to P22 that accused previously also committed similar type of offences in past and ac- cused is in habit of committing offences.

29.After perusal of the whole record including the statement under Section 251 Cr.P.C and when answers given in Section 313 Cr.P.C, found contradiction and major improvements in the statements of the accused and in view of the above discussion as well as no contradiction is found in the statement given by :25: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022

PW.1 and the defence version taken by the accused at the time of oral argument is devoid of any merit and liable to be rejected.

30.In the considered opinion of the Court, a mere contradiction in the state- ment of the complainant is not enough to disprove the case of the complainant in entirety. Moreover, in the instant case neither the accused examined himself neither produce any document to disprove any contention of the complainant.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this argument of Ld. counsel for the accused at the stage of final arguments appears only a belated attempt to cast some doubt on the case of the complainant which is devoid of any merits and is liable to be rejected. However, in the instant case complainant stated in cross examination that he invested the money into the chit fund business of accused and to pay back the invested amount, accused has issued Ex.P1 cheque and ac- cused has miserably failed to lead or prove his defence version for the reasons as discussed. Hence, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption raised against him u/s 139 r/w 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act in present case.

31.Learned Counsel for the accused never asked questions to PW.1 that whether the cheque in question was given as blank signed security cheque to the complainant and putting mere suggestions without leading any evidence is of no use, it is a bare statement and does not shake the credit of witness. How- ever, in order to prove the aforesaid no defence version is placed before this

Court and no credible evidence in support has been lead by the accused. Hence, oral submissions without supporting any reliable document or evidence cannot be considered and is liable to be rejected.

32.In view of the above, this court is of the considered opinion that the ac- cused could not raise a probable defence in order to rebut the presumption un- der section 139 r/w section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act. The com- plainant disclosed the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability vide the :26: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022 cheque in question, return memo, legal notice and other documents brought on record. There is sufficient material on record to conclude that complainant has successfully proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and accused failed to re- but the presumption.

33.Accordingly, the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Typed to my dictation to Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 22 nd day of January, 2026.

Sd/-

VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HYDERABAD.

34. Though as per section 255 of Criminal Procedure Code, hearing of the accused on the quantum of sentence is not within the ambit of the said section. Though the section does not manifest on hearing of the accused on quantum of sentence, still this court is of an opinion that the accused must be given an opportunity for hearing him on the quantum of sentence while imposing punishment in the interest of Justice and to meet the ends of justice.

35. The accused is heard on quantum of sentence, accused stated that he is a senior citizen and his health is not good and pleaded mercy and prayed this court to take a lenient view. After considering the Ex.P19 to P22 this

Court took serious view and imposed double the amount of cheque and imprisonment for 2 years.

36. The cheque amount in this case is for Rs.10,00,000/- and twice the amount of cheque would come to Rs.20,00,000/-.

:27: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022

37. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and consequently are convicted

U/sec.255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and also sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Lakhs only) to the complainant within one (01) month and in default of payment of fine, Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

Six (06) months. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for the period of Six (6) months in terms of section 437-A of Code of Criminal

Procedure. Office is directed to furnish a free copy of this Judgment to the accused under proper acknowledgment as per Sec.363 Cr.P.C r/w Rule 72 of

Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990. No order as to property.

Typed to my dictation to Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 22 nd day of January, 2026.

Sd/-

VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HYDERABAD.

A PPENDIX O F E VIDENCE

W ITNESSES E XAMINED

F OR C OMPLAINANT

PW1 -B. Laxmi Narasimha Reddy

F OR D EFENSE

Nil

E XHIBITS M ARKED

F OR C OMPLAINANT :

Ex.P1 :Cheque No.206337, dt.05.09.2017 for Rs.10.00 Lakhs.

Ex.P2 :Cheque Return Memo, dt.28.11.2017.

Ex.P3 :Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.18.12.2017.

Ex.P4 :RPAD Postal Receipt, dt.19.12.2017

Ex.P5 :RPAD Returned Cover, Dt.22.12.2017.

Ex.P6 :RPAD Postal Receipt, Dt.19.12.2017.

:28: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022

Ex.P7 :RPAD Returned Cover, Dt.22.12.2017.

Ex.P8 :Sada Shiva Chit Card for Rs.05.00 Lakhs.

Ex.P9 :Sada Shiva Chit Crd for Rs.05.00 Lakhs.

Ex.P10:Sada Shiva Chit Card for Rs.02.00 Lakhs.

Ex.P11:Bank Statement from 02.09.2015 to 28.06.2017 issued by SBI, OU Branch, Hyderabad, pertaining to SB A/c of Complainant.

Ex.P12:Attested Xerox copy of FIR No. 683/2017, dt.22.09.2017 issued by P.S. Saroornagar.

Ex.P13:Unattested e-mail copy sent to the son of accused issued by counsel for complainant, dt.20.12.2017.

Ex.P14:Certified xerox copy of Sale Deed No. 2341/2016 executed by accused as Managing Partner at H.No.8-4-17/121, Sairamnagar Colony, Champapet, Saroornagar, Hyderabad.

Ex.P15:Certified xerox copy of RPAD envelop, dt.30.10.2017.

Ex.P16:Certified xerox copy of RPAD envelop dt.27.10.2017.

Ex.P17:Certified xerox copy of RPAD envelop dt.30.10.2017.

Ex.P18:Certified xerox copy of RPAD envelop dt.09.10.2017.

Ex.P19:Certified xerox copy of Judgment of conviction to the accused A.Konda Reddy, R/o. Flat No.501, Champapet, awarded by VIII Spl. Magistrate, L.B Nagar, in CC No.15/2018 dt.14.03.2019.

Ex.P20:Certified xerox copy of Judgment of conviction to the accused A.Konda Reddy, R/o. Flat No.501, Champapet, awarded by VIII Spl. Magistrate, L.B Nagar, in CC No. 6/2018 dt.07.05.2019.

Ex.P21:Certified xerox copy of Judgment of conviction to the accused A.Konda Reddy R/o. Flat No.501, Champapet, awarded by VIII Spl. Magistrate, L.B Nagar, in CC No. 180/2018 dt.14.06.2019.

Ex.P22:Certified xerox copy of Judgment of conviction to the accused A.Konda Reddy, R/o. Flat No.501, Champapet, awarded by VIII Spl. Magistrate, L.B Nagar, in CC No.181/2018 dt.14.06.2019.

Ex.P23:CC of registered Gift deed No.7950/2017 dated 11.09.2017 registered at SRO – Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy district by Respondent/Accused.

Ex.P24:CC of Registered Sale Deed No.8039/2017 dated 13.09.2017 registered at SRO – Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy district by Respondent/Accused.

Ex.P25:CC of Sale Deed No.6185/2017 dated 28.08.2017 executed by Accused wife Smt.A.Veena along with Smt.D.Sreelatha, W/o. D.Narasimha Rao at SRO – Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy, in favour of Chinthakunta Janardhan Reddy, S/o. C. Narayana Reddy, :29: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 17339 of 2022

Ex.P26:CC of sale deed No. 6447/2017 dated 04.09.2017 executed by Accused wife Smt.A.Veena at SRO- Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, representing her brother C. Anil Reddy, R/o. H.No.9-77, Shantinagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, in favour of her brother-in-law Madhusudhan Reddy Nyalapatla,

Ex.P27:CC of sale deed No. 6448/ 2017 dated 04.09.2017 executed by Accused wife Smt.A.Veena at SRO - Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, representing her brother C. Anil Reddy, R/o. H.No.9-77, Shantinagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, in favour of her brother-in-law Madhusudhan Reddy Nyalapatla,

Ex.P28:CC of sale deed No. 6449 of 2017 dated 04.09.2017 executed by Accused wife Smt.A.Veena at SRO – Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, representing her brother C.Anil Reddy, R/o. H.No.9-77, Shantinagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, in favour of her brother-in-law Madhusudhan Reddy Nyalapatla,

Ex.P29:CC of sale deed No. 7951/2017 dt.11.09.2017 executed by Accused wife Smt.A.Veena at SRO – Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District.

For Accused:

Ex.D1 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.12.09.2017

Ex.D2 :Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.16.06.2016

Sd/-

VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HYDERABAD

//True copy//

:1: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MANORANJAN COMPLEX, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri. Jitin Kumar VII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad

Thursday, 18 th day of December, 2025

CC-NI.No. 12595 of 2022

(Old CC No. 18465/2019 on the file of Hon’ble IV Addl. Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Hyderabad)

BETWEEN:

S. Rama Krishna, S/o: S. Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No. 3-3-553/1, Kutbiguda,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad. ...Complainant.

AND

Smt. T. Vanitha, W/o: T. Shiva Shanker Goud, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Household,

R/o: H.No. 4-6-173, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad -27. ...Accused

Offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. T. Chandra Shekar, Counsel for the Complainant and of Sri. B. Srikanth Kumar, Counsel for Accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed against the above named accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter be referred to as N.I.Act.

The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:

2.That the complainant submits that the accused and her husband T.

Shiva Shanker Goud offered complainant to sell their house property bearing

Municipal No. 3-1-90, admeasuring 100 sq.yds with existing structure situated at Mothi Market, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad and complainant accepted the :2: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022 accused proposal and paid an advance amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs to the accused towards advance sale consideration in respect of the above said property.

Complainant further submits that the accused has failed to receive the balance sale consideration and execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainant by stating some personal reasons and to return the advance amount of Rs. 6.0 0 lakhs, accused had issued a cheque B.No. 649809 dated 27.03.2018 and when complainant presented the said cheque in his account for collection the same was dishonored on 17.04.2018 for the reasons ‘Invalid cheque’ and when the complainant initiated legal proceeding against the accused, accused has approached the complainant with her husband came and entered a MOU dated 06.06.2018 and agreed to pay Rs.6.00 lakhs and simultaneously issued two cheques one for Rs. 4.00 lakhs and another for Rs. 2.00 lakhs in favour of the complainant towards discharge of her liability which is an legally enforceable debt. Complainant further submits that as per the instructions of accused when complainant presented the cheque No. 000353 dated 27.02.2019 for Rs.

2.00 lakhs to his bank, the cheque was returned by the bank for the reasons ‘Funds Insufficient’ vide cheque return memo dated 28.02.2019. Complainant further submits that accused knowingly issued the cheque that there is no sufficient funds in her account. Thereafter, complainant issued a Legal Notice

dated 20.03.2019 through RPAD to the accused to her two addresses and the

said notice was served upon the accused on 23.03.2019 and inspite of receiving the notice accused failed to pay the amount. Hence the complaint.

3.The complainant filed the complaint before the Hon’ble IV Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad on 30.04.2019 and numbered as

CC.No.18465 of 2019. As per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, this case is transferred to this Court on 05.09.2022 and re- numbered as CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022.

:3: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022

4. Upon the appearance of the accused, she was provided with a copy of the complaint and other relevant documents under Section 207 of the Code of Crim- inal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Thereafter accused was examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., in which she reported that she has not signed any Memorandum of

Understanding and she has not issued any cheque and she has received legal notice and every allegation in the substance of accusation is in the knowledge of her husband and further pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offence. Further no defence statement was filed on behalf of accused and matter was put for trial.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant examined himself as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 as documentary evidence. Ex.P1 is certi- fied copy of Memorandum of Understanding dt.06.06.2018, Ex.P2 is Cheque

No.000353, dt.27.02.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/-, Ex.P3 is Cheque Return

Memo, dt.28.02.2019, Ex.P4 is office copy of legal notice dt. 20.03.2019,

Ex.P5 is the Postal Receipts dt.20.03.2019, Ex.P6 is the Acknowledgment

Card dt.23.03.2019 and further no witnesses were examined.

6. PW.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the Accused and further reported no further evidence on complainant side. After the closure of the complainant’s evidence, Accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and reported that whole allegations made by PW.1 by entering into the witness box are false and further reported that she do not know the complainant and she never took any loan from PW.1 and PW.1 filed false case against her and she do not owe any legal enforceable liability of payment to the complainant and she took a loan from one Banda Suri who took blank signed cheques which were misused by the complainant and further reported no defence evidence so basing on that this Court has closed the defence evidence and the matter was put for final arguments.

:4: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022

7. Heard the arguments on behalf of both sides and perused the record. After carefully hearing the arguments presented by both sides, the following points arise for determination:

Now the point for determination is that

(i)whether the cheque in question was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable liability or not;

(ii)whether the cheque was presented before the bank for encash ment within three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier or not;

(iii)whether demand is made in writing by the payee or holder in due course by the issuance of a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of information from the bank of the return of the cheques or not; and

(iv)whether there is failure of the drawer to make the payment of the cheque amount to the payee or the holder in due course within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or not.

8.The short facts of the case are that earlier the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs to the accused for the purchase of accused house and due to some reason the further sale could not happened and for returning back the advance payment of Rs.6.00 lakhs accused issued a cheque and thereafter that cheque was dishonored and when complainant communicated the same to the accused about bouncing of cheque, then accused executed one Memorandum of Understanding by issuing two cheques one is for Rs.4.00 lakhs and one is for Rs.2.00 lakhs and subsequently both cheques were returned on the ground ‘Insufficient Funds’.

9.In chief examination of PW.1, he reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and legal notice and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. In cross- examination of PW.1, he stated that he know the contents of chief affidavit and he studied upto Intermediate and he know how to read and write English and

Telugu and he is doing a Real Estate business and his monthly income is :5: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022 between Rs.25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- and presently he is not having contact number of the accused and he/PW.1 never spoke with the accused on phone, but he/PW.1 spoke with her husband and also visited the house of the accused.

PW.1 further stated that he did not file any document to show that accused is the absolute owner of house property bearing Municipal No.3-1-90, admeasuring 100 sq.yds with existing structure situated at Mothi Market,

Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad, which is the property mentioned in Ex.P1. PW.1 further stated that he did not file any document to show that he has entered into an agreement of sale with the accused regarding the above mentioned property. PW.1 further stated that he did not mention specifically in affidavit about alleged date of agreement entered in between PW.1 and the accused regarding above said property and further PW.1 did not file any Water bill,

Electricity bill, Property Tax standing in the name of accused. PW.1 further stated that he did not mention the mode of payment of Rs.6.00 lakhs and also the place, time and in whose presence the alleged transaction took place and further PW.1 never filed any Specific Performance Suit against the accused

before the Civil Court. PW.1 further stated that in February, 2017 he gave an

amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs to the accused and further PW.1 never filed any bank statement which is going to show that he is in the possession of Rs. 6.00 lakhs or his account amount is above Rs. 6.00 lakhs. PW.1 further stated that he did not mention anywhere about total sale consideration of the alleged purchasing of the property. PW.1 further stated that he is an income Tax Assessee and he can file I.T. Returns pertaining to the year 2016-17 and the present transaction not shown in I.T. Returns. Pw.1 further stated that he did not file the original cheque No. 649809 dated 27.03.2018 before this Court as mentioned in Para

No.2 of his Chief Affidavit and did not file any document which is going to show that cheque No. 649809 was dishonored due to Invalid cheque. PW.1 further stated that he is not having any other cheques of accused or of her husband.

:6: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022

PW.1 further stated that he did not issue any legal notice and did not file any complaint against the husband of accused. PW.1 further stated that in first 3 pages of Ex.P1 i.e., MOU, does not bear his signature and the signature of accused appearing in Exs.P1 and P2 are different. PW.1 further stated that in

Ex.P1 MOU at page No.3 the contents were written with pen in the blank columns and after getting the matter typed the blank columns were filled and the blank filled column no initials or signatures of PW.1 or accused are there.

PW.1 further stated that one person Srinivas is one of the witness to the Ex.P1 and PW.1 can bring the said Srinivas to the witness box. PW.1 further stated that he did not file the return postal cover which was sent to the accused at his house No. 3-1-90. PW.1 further stated that he did not mention the place of execution and witness of execution of Ex.P1 anywhere in this file and as per

Ex.P1 the address of the accused is mentioned as H.No. 3-1-90 and on Ex.P6 the signature of the addressee is mentioned as M. Manemma and signature of the accused on Ex.P6 is not there. PW.1 further submitted that he did not send legal notice to the accused through whatsapp and he do not know any person namely Banda Suri and it is true that both him and Banda Suri are staying in

Kachiguda and PW.1 do not know whether Banda Suri is doing Finance

Business/Chit Business and Real Estate Business. PW.1 further submitted that he do not know whether Banda Suri is the close person to MLA Khairtabad and he/PW.1 know that husband of the accused namely Shiva Shanker who also residing in Kachiguda and further PW.1 do not know whether Shiva

Shanker and Banda Suri is having any financial transaction. PW.1 further submitted that accused not issued blank cheque to him and he is not having phone number of the accused but having phone number of husband of the accused and some suggestions were put by the learned counsel for accused.

Thereafter, due to no evidence placed on record by the accused this Court closed the defence evidence on the ground of non production of defence evidence.

:7: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022

10.I have gone through the entire record and carefully perused the evidence lead by the complainant only but before appreciating the facts of the case at length for arriving at any conclusion let the relevant position of law will discuss first :-

Before finding the conviction of the accused u/s 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, it has to be established by the complainant cumulatively that :

(i) the cheque in question was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable liability;

(ii)the cheque was presented before the bank for encashment within three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(iii)a demand is made in writing by the payee or holder in due course by the issuance of a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of information from the bank of the return of the cheques; and

(iv)there is failure of the drawer to make the payment of the cheque amount to the payee or the holder in due course within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice.

11.This legal position was discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in case titled as MSR Leathers vs. S. Palaniappan (2013) 1 SCC 177, wherein it was held that, “6.……. The proviso to Section 138, however, is all important and stipulates three distinct conditions precedent, which must be satisfied before the dis-

honour of a cheque can constitute an offence and

become punishable. The first condition is that the cheque ought to have been presented to the bank within a period of t h re e months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its va- lidity, whichever is earlier. The second condition is that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, ought to make a de- mand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer :8: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022 of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the re- turn of the cheque as unpaid. The third condition is that the drawer of such a cheque should have failed to make 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. It is only upon the satisfaction of all the three conditions mentioned above and enumerated under the pro- viso to Section 138 as clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof that an offence under Section 138 can be said to have been committed by the person is- suing the cheque.

12.This Court shall now examine if the aforesaid four ingredients as described in the forgoing paragraph have been duly satisfied in this case or not.

That whether the cheque in dispute was presented within the period of its valid- ity or not has not been disputed by the accused at any stage of trial. In the case in hand since there is no dispute or any examination of witnesses by the ac- cused regarding the validity period of the cheques which is presented before the

Bank and in this case after perusal also this Court finds that the cheque was presented before the Bank within the statutory period. In the case in hand since there is no evidence placed on record by the accused to contradict or to disprove the validity period of the cheque. Accordingly, condition no. (ii), as above stands satisfied and in favour of the complainant.

13.In the present matter, accused has accepted the receiving of statutory le- gal demand notice at the time of Section 251 of Cr.P.C examination and he had the due notice of the pendency of present complaint case against him and de- spite which he had failed to make payment of cheque amount in question to the complainant. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, in case of C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty

Muhammed , (2007) 6 SCC 555, wherein it has been held as follows:

:9: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022 “ It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of sum- mons from the court in respect of the complaint un- der Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of sum- mons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As ob- served in Bhaskarans case (supra), if the giving of notice in the context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of notice a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act.

Accordingly, conditions No.(iii) and (iv) as above also stands satisfied in favour of the complainant as it is matter of record that accused had due notice of the pendency of the present complaint case and despite which he failed to make the payment of cheque in question to the complainant.

14.It is now only remains to be seen for the point No.(i) whether the accused issued the cheque in question i.e., Ex.P1 in favour of the complainant in order to discharge his legally enforceable liability or not.

15.Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e. Complainant in the present case, as soon as the execu- tion of cheque is proved. Firstly, under Section 118 (a) N.I. Act, with respect to the consideration that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for con- :10: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022 sideration and when such instrument has been accepted, transferred, negoti- ated or endorsed was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consider- ation. Secondly, a presumption under section 139 N.I. Act that it shall be pre- sumed that the holder of cheque received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability unless contrary is proved.

Section 118 (a) of the N.I. Act provides :

“Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. —Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: of consideration —that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

Section 139 of the N.I. Act further provides as follows :-

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

However, both the aforesaid presumptions are rebuttable in nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Basalingappa Vs.

Mudibasappa, Crl. Appeal No.636 of 2019 , (2019) 5 SCC 418: The same is produced as under :

23. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a) and139, we now summarise the princi- ples enumerated by this Court in following manner:

(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the dis- charge of any debt or other liability.

(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presump- tion and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable de- fence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.

(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable de- fence. 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.

:11: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022

(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the wit- ness box in support of his defence,Section 139 imposed an evi- dentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.

16.As per the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned Judgment, the presumptions u/s 118(a) read with Section 139 of the

Act has to be compulsorily raised against the accused once execution of cheque by the accused is either admitted by him, or is proved by the complainant, and thereafter the burden is shifted upon accused to prove otherwise. These pre- sumptions shall be rebutted only when the contrary is proved by the accused i.e., the cheque was not issued for any consideration, or in discharge of any debt or liability.

17.In the instant case, since accused has not admitted the issuance of the cheque to the complainant in answer to notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C as well as in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, but accused admitted to issue cheques to one

Banda Suri. In the case in hand after perusal of the examinations done by this

Court on accused and on each and every questions accused has said that every- thing is false, she has not issued the cheque and her husband knows everything and whole story of the prosecution is false and whatever PW.1 said that is also false but nowhere accused was telling about how her cheque was landed into the custody of the complainant and giving answers under examination by saying that every story of the prosecution is false without leading any material or evi- dence before the Court is of no use. So at each and every point of examination, accused said whole story of the prosecution is false and she has nothing to do with the transaction.

18.In the case in hand after perusal of the file this Court finds that con- tention of the complainant is that earlier the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs to the accused for the purchase of accused house and due to some reason the further sale could not happened and for returning back :12: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022 the advance payment of Rs.6.00 lakhs accused issued a cheque and thereafter that cheque was dishonored and when complainant communicated the same to the accused about bouncing of cheque, then accused executed one Memoran- dum of Understanding by issuing two cheques one is for Rs.4.00 lakhs and one is for Rs.2.00 lakhs and subsequently both cheques were returned on the ground ‘Insufficient Funds’. After perusal of Ex.P1 which is the certified copy of

Memorandum of Understanding in which it is mentioned that a sum of

Rs.6,00,000/- is received by the Second Party/Accused as advance sale consid- eration transferred via cheques. In the case in hand nowhere learned counsel

for accused has put any questions regarding the execution or validity of Ex.P1

and the amount transferred via cheques or contents of Ex.P1. In the case in hand since no counter evidence placed on record against Ex.P1, Ex.P1 shows that one Memorandum of Understanding took place in between complainant and accused for the purpose of one sale transaction for property and the alleged property was not sold to the complainant due to unforeseen reasons and for re- turning the amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, accused issued cheque bearing No.

000353 for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant and further Ex.P3 shows that when the cheque was presented by the complainant to the banker for col- lection, then the same was returned by the bank on the ground Insufficient

Funds and further Ex.P4 shows that office copy of legal notice was also served and Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 shows that accused is having full knowledge of pendency of this case.

19.After perusal of the whole file including complaint, chief examination and cross examination of PW.1, this Court finds that no where in the cross examina- tion the credit of PW.1 is shaked towards the fact that whether accused does not owe an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. In the case in hand in cross examination, learned counsel for accused was discussing about one :13: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022

Banda Suri but Banda Suri never came before this Court in support of his de- fence. In the case in hand, accused failed to show any circumstance which sug- gests that the cheques were not issued to the complainant and how her cheques were landed into the custody of the complainant and even if her cheques were lost whether she made any complaint before any Authority. In the case in hand, in the whole case learned counsel for accused has put mere suggestions sup- ported with nothing. In the case in hand the contention of the accused in cross examination is that the cheques were issued to Banda Suri but there is nothing came on record regarding Banda Suri and PW.1 fully denied the fact that she do not know Banda Suri, so with regard to Banda Suri no evidence is placed on record and neither Banda Suri came into the witness box. In the case in hand after perusal of cross examination, the cross examination of PW.1 this Court finds that it is in the favour of the complainant only and after perusal of 313 ex- amination accused admitted that she issued the cheques to Banda Suri and ex- ecution of cheques is admitted. In the case in hand under examination accused told that her husband knows everything about this case but after perusal this

Court finds that not even her husband came into the witness box to support her contention. In the case in hand since accused has admitted the executed of the cheque to one Banda Suri and failed to give explanations that how their cheques were landed into the custody of complainant, it shows the contradiction in the version of the accused at the other stages of the trial. In Sec.251 Cr.P.C exami- nation, accused is saying that her husband knows everything but in Sec.313

Cr.P.C examination she said that she do not know the complainant, she do not took any loan, accused filed false case and one Banda Suri took blank signed cheques which were misused by the complainant. In the case in hand, the whole story of the accused is based upon one fact that is the cheques were is- sued to Banda Suri and misused by the complainant. In the case in hand it is the contention of the accused that cheques were issued to the Banda Suri but :14: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022 no where the Banda Suri came into the witness box to support the case. In the case in hand complainant is saying that it is the accused who issued the cheques in discharge of legally enforceable debt. Whereas accused is saying she issued the cheques to one Banda Suri and those cheques were misused by the complainant. In the case in hand the complainant has lead the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.P1 Memorandum of Understanding, Ex.P2 Cheque for

Rs.2,00,000/- on which there is signature of the accused and the cheque is of the bank account of the accused, whereas accused never lead any evidence to support her contention and nowhere countered the execution of Ex.P1 and

Ex.P2. After perusal of the cross examinations of PW.1 this Court finds that learned counsel for accused has never put any question regarding the fact that whether cheques were not issued by Accued or whether signatures on the cheques were not of Accused. In the case in hand after perusal of the file, this

Court finds that PW.1 is saying that whole transaction happened and the same has been corroborated by Ex.P1 and subsequently by Ex.P2 and nothing has been elicited in the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused re- garding the happening of the transaction. In the case in hand after perusal of the file, this Court finds that PW.1 and exhibits are showing on the same lines and even in the cross examinations of PW.1 nothing contradictory found and moreover learned counsel for accused never put question regarding the fact that whether cheques were not issued by Accused and not signed by Accused.

20. In the case in hand after perusal of whole record this Court finds that

Accused failed to gave any reasonable explanation regarding the fact that how their cheques were landed into the custody of complainant and if their cheques were lost some where whether they have filed any complaint before any proper authority. After perusing the Section 251 Cr.P.C examination and Sec.313

Cr.P.C examination and after finding no reasonable answer from Accused re- :15: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022 garding the fact that how their cheques were landed in to the custody of com- plainant. In the case in hand, complainant successfully proves that he has given advance money to the accused for the purpose and in lieu of one sale transaction and thereafter that sale transaction did not completed due to some reason and thereafter accused by way of returning the advance amount issued cheque to the complainant and when complainant presented the cheque for presentation, the same has been dishonored and after perusing the chief affidavit of PW.1, this

Court finds that and in view of the forgoing discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that a presumption u/s 139 r/w Section118(a) N.I. Act can duly be raised against the accused by saying that Negotiable Instrument was made and drawn for consideration and the cheques were received for the dis- charge of debt liability. Accordingly point No.(i) is stands satisfied in favour of the complainant.

21.Since the above said two presumptions has been duly raised against the accused our next point of determination is that whether the accused is able to rebut the above said presumptions or not. It is now a settled law that accused can rebut these presumption on a scale of standard of pre ponderance of proba- bilities, and to rebut these presumptions it is open for the accused to rely upon the direct evidence lead by himself, or in the exceptional cases, the accused can also rely on materials submitted by the complainant i.e. (statutory notice, evidence etc.) during the trial in order to raise a probable defence. Reliance in this regard, can be placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC.

“………………………………Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the lia- bility of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, …, it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. "It introduces an exception to the gen- :16: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022 eral rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused" (ibid). Such a presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which describes provisions by which the court "may presume" a certain state of af- fairs. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence show- ing the reasonable possibility of the non existence of the presumed fact. In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law ex- ists, no discretion is left with the Court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the per- son against whom the presumption is drawn from re- butting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, "after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its exis- tence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists". Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evi- dence must be adduced before the Court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the de- fence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'.”

22.In the backdrop of legal position as enunciated above, it is now to be ex- amined by this Court that whether the accused on a scale of preponderance of probabilities has been able to rebut the presumptions which has been raised against him and in favour of the complainant, or has been able to demolish the case of the complainant to such extent so as to shift the onus placed upon the accused back again on the complainant, and if the Court comes to the conclu- sion that accused has not been able to rebut the presumptions raised against him by failing to bring on record direct evidence or by even failing to sufficiently perforate the case of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to a decision in his favour.

:17: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022

23.In light of the aforesaid legal position, this Court shall now examine that whether the accused has been able to prove his defence in affirmative or not, by carrying out scrutiny of the evidence which has been led at the trial but in the case in hand since there is no evidence has been given from the side of the ac- cused and due to non production of evidence from the side of Accused evidence of defence is closed. In the case in hand accused admitted execution of cheques to Banda Suri and further contended that from Banda Suri complainant took cheques and misused it. It is the contention of accused and accused has to prove her version by leading evidence only a mere suggestions cannot work. It is the duty of accused to prove her version based on two things, one – her hus- band knows everything, Secondly – cheques were given to Banda Suri. In both of the cases accused failed to prove how the cheques landed into the custofy of complainant and merely saying she gave cheques to Banda Suri cannot find any place without proving the same.

24.After upon a careful perusal of Ex.P2 i.e., Cheque of Rs.2,00,000/-, it is revealed that it bears signature of the accused, Ex.P3 is the cheque return memo which reveals that Ex.P2 is dishonored, Ex.P4 is the office copy of legal notice, which reveals that legal notice was prepared by the learned counsel for complainant, Ex.P5 is the postal receipt and Ex.P6 is the postal acknowledg- ment card. However, in the instant case accused neither examined himself as a witness in the court nor not produced any evidence before this Court. After pe- rusal of whole exhibits, this Court finds that the cheques were issued for the le- gal enforceable debt and subsequently that was dishonored and subsequently the payment of not made. Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 fully corroborated towards the fact that Negotiable Instrument is given to complainant for legally enforceable debt and subsequently it has been bounced/dishonored and committed the offence.

After perusal of the whole record including the statement under Section 251 :18: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022

Cr.P.C and when answers given in Section 313 Cr.P.C and in view of the above discussion as well as no contradiction is found in the statement given by PW.1 and the defence version taken by the accused at the time of oral argument is de- void of any merit and liable to be rejected. In the case in hand accused is stick to one conclusion that cheques were given to Banda Suri, but nobody came to support her contention and no documents were produced. The contents raised by accused has found no hands and legs and it is a mere suggestion. In the case in hand only at the time of cross examination, accused came up with one contention that accused gave cheques to Banda Suri and took amount/ loan from Banda Suri, but Banda Suri never came to depose in favour of her and change of version in the testimony of accused found at the time of examination

U/Sec. 251 Cr.P.C, 313 Cr.P.C examinations of accused. In the case in hand complainant clearly proved the execution of cheques by accused to complainant with support of evidence and this Court find full corroboration among the testi- mony and exhibits produced by complainant.

25.In the considered opinion of the Court, in order to prove the fact that com- plainant lacked sources of funds, as he could have called for the documents re- garding the sources of funds of the complainant and mere a contradiction in the statement of the complainant is not enough to disprove the case of the com- plainant in entirety. Moreover, in the instant case neither the accused examined himself neither produce any document to disprove any contention of the com- plainant. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this argument of Ld. coun- sel for the accused at the stage of final arguments appears only a belated at- tempt to cast some doubt on the case of the complainant which is devoid of any merits and is liable to be rejected and accused has miserably failed to lead or prove his defence version for the reasons as discussed. Hence, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption raised against him u/s 139 r/w 118(a) of Nego- tiable Instrument Act in present case.

:19: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022

26.Learned Counsel for the accused never asked questions to PW.1 that whether the cheque in question was given as blank signed security cheque to the complainant or whether the cheques were had been misused by the com- plainant and putting mere suggestions without leading any evidence is of no use, it is a bare statement and does not shake the credit of witness. However, in order to prove the aforesaid no defence version is placed before this Court and no credible evidence in support has been lead by the accused. Hence, oral sub- missions without supporting any reliable document or evidence cannot be con- sidered and is liable to be rejected.

27.In view of the above, this court is of the considered opinion that the ac- cused could not raise a probable defence in order to rebut the presumption un- der section 139 r/w section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act. The com- plainant disclosed the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability vide the cheque in question, return memo, legal notice and other documents brought on record. There is sufficient material on record to conclude that complainant has successfully proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.

28.Accordingly, the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Typed to my dictation to Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 18 th day of December, 2025.

VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HYDERABAD.

29. Though as per section 255 of Criminal Procedure Code, hearing of the accused on the quantum of sentence is not within the ambit of the said section. Though the section does not manifest on hearing of the accused on quantum of sentence, still this court is of an opinion that the accused must :20: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022 be given an opportunity for hearing him on the quantum of sentence while imposing punishment in the interest of Justice and to meet the ends of justice.

30. The accused heard on quantum of sentence, accused stated that she is having two small kids and she is a housewife and pleaded mercy and prayed this court to take a lenient view.

31. The cheque amount in this case is for Rs.2,00,000/- and twice the amount of cheque would come to Rs.4,00,000/-.

32. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and consequently Accused is convicted U/sec.255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, accused sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and also sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Four

Lakhs only) to the complainant within one (01) month and in default of payment of fine, Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

Six (06) months. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for the period of Six (6) months in terms of section 437-A of Code of Criminal

Procedure. Office is directed to furnish a free copy of this Judgment to the accused under proper acknowledgment as per Sec.363 Cr.P.C r/w Rule 72 of

Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990. No order as to property.

Typed to my dictation to Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 18 th day of December, 2025.

VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HYDERABAD.

:21: Fair Judgment of CC-NI No. 12595 of 2022

A PPENDIX O F E VIDENCE

W ITNESSES E XAMINED

F OR C OMPLAINANT

PW1 -S. Rama Krishna

F OR D EFENSE

Nil

E XHIBITS M ARKED

F OR C OMPLAINANT :

Ex.P1 :Certified copy of Memorandum of Understanding dt.06.06.2018.

Ex.P2 :Cheque No.000353, dated 27.02.2019, for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Ex.P3 :Cheque Return Memo, dated 28.02.2019.

Ex.P4 :Office copy of legal notice dated 20.03.2019.

Ex.P5 :Postal Receipts dated 20.03.2019.

Ex.P6 :Acknowledgment Card dated 23.03.2019

For Accused:Nil

VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HYDERABAD

:1: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MANORANJAN COMPLEX, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri. Jitin Kumar VII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad

Thursday, 18 th day of December, 2025

CC-NI.No. 621 of 2025

(STC - NI No. 5690 of 2022)

BETWEEN:

S. Rama Krishna, S/o: S. Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No. 3-3-553/1, Kutbiguda,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad. ...Complainant.

AND

Smt. T. Vanitha, W/o: T. Shiva Shanker Goud, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Household,

R/o: H.No. 4-6-173, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad -27. ...Accused

Offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. T. Chandra Shekar, Counsel for the Complainant and of Sri. B. Srikanth Kumar, Counsel for Accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed against the above named accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter be referred to as N.I.Act.

The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:

2.That the complainant submits that the accused and her husband T.

Shiva Shanker Goud offered complainant to sell their house property bearing

Municipal No. 3-1-90, admeasuring 100 sq.yds with existing structure situated at Mothi Market, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad and complainant accepted the accused proposal and paid an advance amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs to the accused :2: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025 towards advance sale consideration in respect of the above said property.

Complainant further submits that the accused has failed to receive the balance sale consideration and execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainant by stating some personal reasons and to return the advance amount of Rs. 6.0 0 lakhs, accused had issued a cheque B.No. 649809 dated 27.03.2018 and when complainant presented the said cheque in his account for collection the same was dishonored on 17.04.2018 for the reasons ‘Invalid cheque’ and when the complainant initiated legal proceeding against the accused, accused has approached the complainant with her husband came and entered a MOU dated 06.06.2018 and agreed to pay Rs.6.00 lakhs and simultaneously issued two cheques one for Rs. 4.00 lakhs and another for Rs. 2.00 lakhs in favour of the complainant towards discharge of her liability which is an legally enforceable debt. Complainant further submits that as per the instructions of accused when complainant presented the cheque No. 000351 dated 04.10.2018 for Rs.

4.00 lakhs to his bank, the cheque was returned by the bank for the reasons ‘Funds Insufficient’ vide cheque return memo dated 05.10.2018. Complainant further submits that accused knowingly issued the cheque that there is no sufficient funds in her account. Thereafter, complainant issued a Legal Notice

dated 10.10.2018 through RPAD to the accused and the said notice was served

upon the accused on 16.10.2018 and inspite of receiving the notice accused failed to pay the amount. Hence the complaint.

3.The complainant filed the complaint before the Hon’ble IV Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad on 28.11.2018 and as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, this case is transferred to this Court and numbered as STC-NI No. 5690 of 2022. In view of the intricacies involved in this case, this case is converted from STC-NI to CC-NI and re-numbered as

CC-NI No. 621 of 2025.

:3: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025

4. Upon the appearance of the accused, she was provided with a copy of the complaint and other relevant documents under Section 207 of the Code of Crim- inal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Thereafter accused was examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., in which she reported that she has not signed any Memorandum of

Understanding and she has not issued any cheque and she has received legal notice and every allegation in the substance of accusation is in the knowledge of her husband and further pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offence. Further no defence statement was filed on behalf of accused and matter was put for trial.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant examined himself as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 as documentary evidence. Ex.P1 is the

Memorandum of Understanding dated 06.06.2018, Ex.P2 is the Cheque No.

000351, dt.04.10.2018 for Rs.4,00,000/-, Ex.P3 is the Cheque Return

Memo, dt.05.10.2018, Ex.P4 is the office copy of legal notice dt.10.10.2018,

Ex.P5 is the Postal Receipt dated11.10.2018, Ex.P6 is the Acknowledgment

Card dated 16.10.2018 and further no witnesses were examined.

6. PW.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the Accused and further reported no further evidence on complainant side. After the closure of the complainant’s evidence, Accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and reported that whole allegations made by PW.1 by entering into the witness box are false and further reported that she do not know the complainant and she never took any loan from PW.1 and PW.1 filed false case against her and she do not owe any legal enforceable liability of payment to the complainant and she took a loan from one Banda Suri who took blank signed cheques which were misused by the complainant and further reported no defence evidence so basing on that this Court has closed the defence evidence and the matter was put for final arguments.

:4: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025

7. Heard the arguments on behalf of both sides and perused the record. After carefully hearing the arguments presented by both sides, the following points arise for determination:

Now the point for determination is that

(i)whether the cheque in question was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable liability or not;

(ii)whether the cheque was presented before the bank for encash ment within three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier or not;

(iii)whether demand is made in writing by the payee or holder in due course by the issuance of a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of information from the bank of the return of the cheques or not; and

(iv)whether there is failure of the drawer to make the payment of the cheque amount to the payee or the holder in due course within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or not.

8.The short facts of the case are that earlier the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs to the accused for the purchase of accused house and due to some reason the further sale could not happened and for returning back the advance payment of Rs.6.00 lakhs accused issued a cheque and thereafter that cheque was dishonored and when complainant communicated the same to the accused about bouncing of cheque, then accused executed one Memorandum of Understanding by issuing two cheques one is for Rs.4.00 lakhs and one is for Rs.2.00 lakhs and subsequently both cheques were returned on the ground ‘Insufficient Funds’.

9.In chief examination of PW.1, he reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and legal notice and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. In cross- examination of PW.1, he stated that he know the contents of chief affidavit and he studied upto Intermediate and he know how to read and write English and

Telugu and he is doing a Real Estate business and his monthly income is :5: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025 between Rs.25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- and presently he is not having contact number of the accused and he/PW.1 never spoke with the accused on phone, but he/PW.1 spoke with her husband and also visited the house of the accused.

PW.1 further stated that he did not file any document to show that accused is the absolute owner of house property bearing Municipal No.3-1-90, admeasuring 100 sq.yds with existing structure situated at Mothi Market,

Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad, which is the property mentioned in Ex.P1. PW.1 further stated that he did not file any document to show that he has entered into an agreement of sale with the accused regarding the above mentioned property. PW.1 further stated that he did not mention specifically in affidavit about alleged date of agreement entered in between PW.1 and the accused regarding above said property and further PW.1 did not file any Water bill,

Electricity bill, Property Tax standing in the name of accused. PW.1 further stated that he did not mention the mode of payment of Rs.6.00 lakhs and also the place, time and in whose presence the alleged transaction took place and further PW.1 never filed any Specific Performance Suit against the accused

before the Civil Court. PW.1 further stated that in February, 2017 he gave an

amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs to the accused and further PW.1 never filed any bank statement which is going to show that he is in the possession of Rs. 6.00 lakhs or his account amount is above Rs. 6.00 lakhs. PW.1 further stated that he did not mention anywhere about total sale consideration of the alleged purchasing of the property. PW.1 further stated that he is an income Tax Assessee and he can file I.T. Returns pertaining to the year 2016-17 and the present transaction not shown in I.T. Returns. Pw.1 further stated that he did not file the original cheque No. 649809 dated 27.03.2018 before this Court as mentioned in Para

No.2 of his Chief Affidavit and did not file any document which is going to show that cheque No. 649809 was dishonored due to Invalid cheque. PW.1 further stated that he is not having any other cheques of accused or of her husband.

:6: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025

PW.1 further stated that he did not issue any legal notice and did not file any complaint against the husband of accused. PW.1 further stated that in first 3 pages of Ex.P1 i.e., MOU, does not bear his signature and the signature of accused appearing in Exs.P1 and P2 are different. PW.1 further stated that in

Ex.P1 MOU at page No.3 the contents were written with pen in the blank columns and after getting the matter typed the blank columns were filled and the blank filled column no initials or signatures of PW.1 or accused are there.

PW.1 further stated that one person Srinivas is one of the witness to the Ex.P1 and PW.1 can bring the said Srinivas to the witness box. PW.1 further stated that he did not file the return postal cover which was sent to the accused at his house No. 3-1-90. PW.1 further stated that he did not mention the place of execution and witness of execution of Ex.P1 anywhere in this file and as per

Ex.P1 the address of the accused is mentioned as H.No. 3-1-90 and on Ex.P6 the signature of the addressee is mentioned as M. Manemma and signature of the accused on Ex.P6 is not there. PW.1 further submitted that he did not send legal notice to the accused through whatsapp and he do not know any person namely Banda Suri and it is true that both him and Banda Suri are staying in

Kachiguda and PW.1 do not know whether Banda Suri is doing Finance

Business/Chit Business and Real Estate Business. PW.1 further submitted that he do not know whether Banda Suri is the close person to MLA Khairtabad and he/PW.1 know that husband of the accused namely Shiva Shanker who also residing in Kachiguda and further PW.1 do not know whether Shiva

Shanker and Banda Suri is having any financial transaction. PW.1 further submitted that accused not issued blank cheque to him and he is not having phone number of the accused but having phone number of husband of the accused and some suggestions were put by the learned counsel for accused.

Thereafter, due to no evidence placed on record by the accused this Court closed the defence evidence on the ground of non production of defence evidence.

:7: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025

10.I have gone through the entire record and carefully perused the evidence lead by the complainant only but before appreciating the facts of the case at length for arriving at any conclusion let the relevant position of law will discuss first :-

Before finding the conviction of the accused u/s 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, it has to be established by the complainant cumulatively that :

(i) the cheque in question was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable liability;

(ii)the cheque was presented before the bank for encashment within three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(iii)a demand is made in writing by the payee or holder in due course by the issuance of a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of information from the bank of the return of the cheques; and

(iv)there is failure of the drawer to make the payment of the cheque amount to the payee or the holder in due course within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice.

11.This legal position was discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in case titled as MSR Leathers vs. S. Palaniappan (2013) 1 SCC 177, wherein it was held that, “6.……. The proviso to Section 138, however, is all important and stipulates three distinct conditions precedent, which must be satisfied before the dis-

honour of a cheque can constitute an offence and

become punishable. The first condition is that the cheque ought to have been presented to the bank within a period of t h re e months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its va- lidity, whichever is earlier. The second condition is that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, ought to make a de- mand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer :8: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025 of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the re- turn of the cheque as unpaid. The third condition is that the drawer of such a cheque should have failed to make 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. It is only upon the satisfaction of all the three conditions mentioned above and enumerated under the pro- viso to Section 138 as clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof that an offence under Section 138 can be said to have been committed by the person is- suing the cheque.

12.This Court shall now examine if the aforesaid four ingredients as described in the forgoing paragraph have been duly satisfied in this case or not.

That whether the cheque in dispute was presented within the period of its valid- ity or not has not been disputed by the accused at any stage of trial. In the case in hand since there is no dispute or any examination of witnesses by the ac- cused regarding the validity period of the cheques which is presented before the

Bank and in this case after perusal also this Court finds that the cheque was presented before the Bank within the statutory period. In the case in hand since there is no evidence placed on record by the accused to contradict or to disprove the validity period of the cheque. Accordingly, condition no. (ii), as above stands satisfied and in favour of the complainant.

13.In the present matter, accused has accepted the receiving of statutory le- gal demand notice at the time of Section 251 of Cr.P.C examination and he had the due notice of the pendency of present complaint case against him and de- spite which he had failed to make payment of cheque amount in question to the complainant. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, in case of C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty

Muhammed , (2007) 6 SCC 555, wherein it has been held as follows:

:9: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025 “ It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of sum- mons from the court in respect of the complaint un- der Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of sum- mons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As ob- served in Bhaskarans case (supra), if the giving of notice in the context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of notice a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act.

Accordingly, conditions No.(iii) and (iv) as above also stands satisfied in favour of the complainant as it is matter of record that accused had due notice of the pendency of the present complaint case and despite which he failed to make the payment of cheque in question to the complainant.

14.It is now only remains to be seen for the point No.(i) whether the accused issued the cheque in question i.e., Ex.P1 in favour of the complainant in order to discharge his legally enforceable liability or not.

15.Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e. Complainant in the present case, as soon as the execu- tion of cheque is proved. Firstly, under Section 118 (a) N.I. Act, with respect to the consideration that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for con- :10: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025 sideration and when such instrument has been accepted, transferred, negoti- ated or endorsed was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consider- ation. Secondly, a presumption under section 139 N.I. Act that it shall be pre- sumed that the holder of cheque received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability unless contrary is proved.

Section 118 (a) of the N.I. Act provides :

“Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. —Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: of consideration —that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

Section 139 of the N.I. Act further provides as follows :-

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

However, both the aforesaid presumptions are rebuttable in nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Basalingappa Vs.

Mudibasappa, Crl. Appeal No.636 of 2019 , (2019) 5 SCC 418: The same is produced as under :

23. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a) and139, we now summarise the princi- ples enumerated by this Court in following manner:

(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the dis- charge of any debt or other liability.

(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presump- tion and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable de- fence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.

(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable de- fence. 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.

:11: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025

(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the wit- ness box in support of his defence,Section 139 imposed an evi- dentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.

16.As per the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned Judgment, the presumptions u/s 118(a) read with Section 139 of the

Act has to be compulsorily raised against the accused once execution of cheque by the accused is either admitted by him, or is proved by the complainant, and thereafter the burden is shifted upon accused to prove otherwise. These pre- sumptions shall be rebutted only when the contrary is proved by the accused i.e., the cheque was not issued for any consideration, or in discharge of any debt or liability.

17.In the instant case, since accused has not admitted the issuance of the cheque to the complainant in answer to notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C as well as in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, but accused admitted to issue cheques to one

Banda Suri. In the case in hand after perusal of the examinations done by this

Court on accused and on each and every questions accused has said that every- thing is false, she has not issued the cheque and her husband knows everything and whole story of the prosecution is false and whatever PW.1 said that is also false but nowhere accused was telling about how her cheque was landed into the custody of the complainant and giving answers under examination by saying that every story of the prosecution is false without leading any material or evi- dence before the Court is of no use. So at each and every point of examination, accused said whole story of the prosecution is false and she has nothing to do with the transaction.

18.In the case in hand after perusal of the file this Court finds that con- tention of the complainant is that earlier the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs to the accused for the purchase of accused house and :12: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025 due to some reason the further sale could not happened and for returning back the advance payment of Rs.6.00 lakhs accused issued a cheque and thereafter that cheque was dishonored and when complainant communicated the same to the accused about bouncing of cheque, then accused executed one Memoran- dum of Understanding by issuing two cheques one is for Rs.4.00 lakhs and one is for Rs.2.00 lakhs and subsequently both cheques were returned on the ground ‘Insufficient Funds’. After perusal of Ex.P1 which is the Memorandum of Understanding in which it is mentioned that a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- is re- ceived by the Second Party/Accused as advance sale consideration transferred via cheques. In the case in hand nowhere learned counsel for accused has put any questions regarding the execution or validity of Ex.P1 and the amount transferred via cheques or contents of Ex.P1. In the case in hand since no counter evidence placed on record against Ex.P1, Ex.P1 shows that one Memo- randum of Understanding took place in between complainant and accused for the purpose of one sale transaction for property and the alleged property was not sold to the complainant due to unforeseen reasons and for returning the amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, accused issued cheque bearing No. 000351 for

Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the complainant and further Ex.P3 shows that when the cheque was presented by the complainant to the banker for collection, then the same was returned by the bank on the ground Insufficient Funds and fur- ther Ex.P4 shows that office copy of legal notice was also served and Ex.P5 and

Ex.P6 shows that accused is having full knowledge of pendency of this case.

19.After perusal of the whole file including complaint, chief examination and cross examination of PW.1, this Court finds that no where in the cross examina- tion the credit of PW.1 is shaked towards the fact that whether accused does not owe an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant. In the case in hand in cross examination, learned counsel for accused was discussing about one :13: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025

Banda Suri but Banda Suri never came before this Court in support of his de- fence. In the case in hand, accused failed to show any circumstance which sug- gests that the cheques were not issued to the complainant and how her cheques were landed into the custody of the complainant and even if her cheques were lost whether she made any complaint before any Authority. In the case in hand, in the whole case learned counsel for accused has put mere suggestions sup- ported with nothing. In the case in hand the contention of the accused in cross examination is that the cheques were issued to Banda Suri but there is nothing came on record regarding Banda Suri and PW.1 fully denied the fact that he do not know Banda Suri, so with regard to Banda Suri no evidence is placed on record and neither Banda Suri came into the witness box. In the case in hand after perusal of cross examination, the cross examination of PW.1 this Court finds that it is in the favour of the complainant only and after perusal of 313 ex- amination accused admitted that she issued the cheques to Banda Suri and ex- ecution of cheques is admitted. In the case in hand under examination accused told that her husband knows everything about this case but after perusal this

Court finds that not even her husband came into the witness box to support her contention. In the case in hand since accused has admitted the executed of the cheque to one Banda Suri and failed to give explanations that how their cheques were landed into the custody of complainant, it shows the contradiction in the version of the accused at the other stages of the trial. In Sec.251 Cr.P.C exami- nation, accused is saying that her husband knows everything but in Sec.313

Cr.P.C examination she said that she do not know the complainant, she do not took any loan, accused filed false case and one Banda Suri took blank signed cheques which were misused by the complainant. In the case in hand, the whole story of the accused is based upon one fact that is the cheques were is- sued to Banda Suri and misused by the complainant. In the case in hand it is the contention of the accused that cheques were issued to the Banda Suri but :14: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025 no where the Banda Suri came into the witness box to support the case. In the case in hand complainant is saying that it is the accused who issued the cheques in discharge of legally enforceable debt. Whereas accused is saying she issued the cheques to one Banda Suri and those cheques were misused by the complainant. In the case in hand the complainant has lead the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.P1 Memorandum of Understanding, Ex.P2 Cheque for

Rs.4,00,000/- on which there is signature of the accused and the cheque is of the bank account of the accused, whereas accused never lead any evidence to support her contention and nowhere countered the execution of Ex.P1 and

Ex.P2. After perusal of the cross examinations of PW.1 this Court finds that learned counsel for accused has never put any question regarding the fact that whether cheques were not issued by Accused or whether signatures on the cheques were not of Accused. In the case in hand after perusal of the file, this

Court finds that PW.1 is saying that whole transaction happened and the same has been corroborated by Ex.P1 and subsequently by Ex.P2 and nothing has been elicited in the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused re- garding the happening of the transaction. In the case in hand after perusal of the file, this Court finds that PW.1 and exhibits are showing on the same lines and even in the cross examinations of PW.1 nothing contradictory found and moreover learned counsel for accused never put question regarding the fact that whether cheques were not issued by Accused and not signed by Accused.

20. In the case in hand after perusal of whole record this Court finds that

Accused failed to gave any reasonable explanation regarding the fact that how their cheques were landed into the custody of complainant and if their cheques were lost some where whether they have filed any complaint before any proper authority. After perusing the Section 251 Cr.P.C examination and Sec.313

Cr.P.C examination and after finding no reasonable answer from Accused re- :15: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025 garding the fact that how their cheques were landed in to the custody of com- plainant. In the case in hand, complainant successfully proves that he has given advance money to the accused for the purpose and in lieu of one sale transaction and thereafter that sale transaction did not completed due to some reason and thereafter accused by way of returning the advance amount issued cheque to the complainant and when complainant presented the cheque for pre- sentation, the same has been dishonored and after perusing the chief affidavit of

PW.1, this Court finds that and in view of the forgoing discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that a presumption u/s 139 r/w Section 118(a)

N.I. Act can duly be raised against the accused by saying that Negotiable Instru- ment was made and drawn for consideration and the cheques were received for the discharge of debt liability. Accordingly point No.(i) is stands satisfied in favour of the complainant.

21.Since the above said two presumptions has been duly raised against the accused our next point of determination is that whether the accused is able to rebut the above said presumptions or not. It is now a settled law that accused can rebut these presumption on a scale of standard of pre ponderance of proba- bilities, and to rebut these presumptions it is open for the accused to rely upon the direct evidence lead by himself, or in the exceptional cases, the accused can also rely on materials submitted by the complainant i.e. (statutory notice, evidence etc.) during the trial in order to raise a probable defence. Reliance in this regard, can be placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC.

“………………………………Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the lia- bility of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, …, it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. "It introduces an exception to the gen- :16: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025 eral rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused" (ibid). Such a presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which describes provisions by which the court "may presume" a certain state of af- fairs. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence show- ing the reasonable possibility of the non existence of the presumed fact. In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law ex- ists, no discretion is left with the Court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the per- son against whom the presumption is drawn from re- butting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, "after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its exis- tence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists". Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evi- dence must be adduced before the Court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the de- fence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'.”

22.In the backdrop of legal position as enunciated above, it is now to be ex- amined by this Court that whether the accused on a scale of preponderance of probabilities has been able to rebut the presumptions which has been raised against him and in favour of the complainant, or has been able to demolish the case of the complainant to such extent so as to shift the onus placed upon the accused back again on the complainant, and if the Court comes to the conclu- sion that accused has not been able to rebut the presumptions raised against him by failing to bring on record direct evidence or by even failing to sufficiently perforate the case of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to a decision in his favour.

:17: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025

23.In light of the aforesaid legal position, this Court shall now examine that whether the accused has been able to prove his defence in affirmative or not, by carrying out scrutiny of the evidence which has been led at the trial but in the case in hand since there is no evidence has been given from the side of the ac- cused and due to non production of evidence from the side of Accused evidence of defence is closed. In the case in hand accused admitted execution of cheques to Banda Suri and further contended that from Banda Suri complainant took cheques and misused it. It is the contention of accused and accused has to prove her version by leading evidence only a mere suggestion cannot work. It is the duty of accused to prove her version based on two things, one – her hus- band knows everything, Secondly – cheques were given to Banda Suri. In both of the cases accused failed to prove how the cheques landed into the custofy of complainant and merely saying she gave cheques to Banda Suri cannot find any place without proving the same.

24.After upon a careful perusal of Ex.P2 i.e., Cheque of Rs.4,00,000/-, it is revealed that it bears signature of the accused, Ex.P3 is the cheque return memo which reveals that Ex.P2 is dishonored, Ex.P4 is the office copy of legal notice, which reveals that legal notice was prepared by the learned counsel for complainant, Ex.P5 is the postal receipt and Ex.P6 is the postal acknowledg- ment card. However, in the instant case accused neither examined himself as a witness in the court nor not produced any evidence before this Court. After pe- rusal of whole exhibits, this Court finds that the cheques were issued for the le- gal enforceable debt and subsequently that was dishonored and subsequently the payment of not made. Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 fully corroborated towards the fact that Negotiable Instrument is given to complainant for legally enforceable debt and subsequently it has been bounced/dishonored and committed the offence.

After perusal of the whole record including the statement under Section 251 :18: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025

Cr.P.C and when answers given in Section 313 Cr.P.C and in view of the above discussion as well as no contradiction is found in the statement given by PW.1 and the defence version taken by the accused at the time of oral argument is de- void of any merit and liable to be rejected. In the case in hand accused is stick to one conclusion that cheques were given to Banda Suri, but nobody came to support her contention and no documents were produced. The contents raised by accused has found no hands and legs and it is a mere suggestion. In the case in hand only at the time of cross examination, accused came up with one contention that accused gave cheques to Banda Suri and took amount/ loan from Banda Suri, but Banda Suri never came to depose in favour of her and change of version in the testimony of accused found at the time of examination

U/Sec. 251 Cr.P.C, 313 Cr.P.C examinations of accused. In the case in hand complainant clearly proved the execution of cheques by accused to complainant with support of evidence and this Court find full corroboration among the testi- mony and exhibits produced by complainant.

25.In the considered opinion of the Court, in order to prove the fact that com- plainant lacked sources of funds, as he could have called for the documents re- garding the sources of funds of the complainant and mere a contradiction in the statement of the complainant is not enough to disprove the case of the com- plainant in entirety. Moreover, in the instant case neither the accused examined himself neither produce any document to disprove any contention of the com- plainant. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this argument of Ld. coun- sel for the accused at the stage of final arguments appears only a belated at- tempt to cast some doubt on the case of the complainant which is devoid of any merits and is liable to be rejected and accused has miserably failed to lead or prove his defence version for the reasons as discussed. Hence, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption raised against him u/s 139 r/w 118(a) of Nego- tiable Instrument Act in present case.

:19: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025

26.Learned Counsel for the accused never asked questions to PW.1 that whether the cheque in question was given as blank signed security cheque to the complainant or whether the cheques were had been misused by the com- plainant and putting mere suggestions without leading any evidence is of no use, it is a bare statement and does not shake the credit of witness. However, in order to prove the aforesaid no defence version is placed before this Court and no credible evidence in support has been lead by the accused. Hence, oral sub- missions without supporting any reliable document or evidence cannot be con- sidered and is liable to be rejected.

27.In view of the above, this court is of the considered opinion that the ac- cused could not raise a probable defence in order to rebut the presumption un- der section 139 r/w section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act. The com- plainant disclosed the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability vide the cheque in question, return memo, legal notice and other documents brought on record. There is sufficient material on record to conclude that complainant has successfully proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.

28.Accordingly, the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Typed to my dictation to Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 18 th day of December, 2025.

VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HYDERABAD.

29. Though as per section 255 of Criminal Procedure Code, hearing of the accused on the quantum of sentence is not within the ambit of the said section. Though the section does not manifest on hearing of the accused on quantum of sentence, still this court is of an opinion that the accused must :20: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025 be given an opportunity for hearing him on the quantum of sentence while imposing punishment in the interest of Justice and to meet the ends of justice.

30. The accused heard on quantum of sentence, accused stated that she is having two small kids and she is a housewife and pleaded mercy and prayed this court to take a lenient view.

31. The cheque amount in this case is for Rs.4,00,000/- and twice the amount of cheque would come to Rs.8,00,000/-.

32. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and consequently Accused is convicted U/sec.255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, accused sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and also sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six

Lakhs only) to the complainant within one (01) month and in default of payment of fine, Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

Six (06) months. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for the period of Six (6) months in terms of section 437-A of Code of Criminal

Procedure. Office is directed to furnish a free copy of this Judgment to the accused under proper acknowledgment as per Sec.363 Cr.P.C r/w Rule 72 of

Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990. No order as to property.

Typed to my dictation to Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 18 th day of December, 2025.

VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HYDERABAD.

:21: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 621 of 2025

A PPENDIX O F E VIDENCE

W ITNESSES E XAMINED

F OR C OMPLAINANT

PW1 -S. Rama Krishna

F OR D EFENSE

Nil

E XHIBITS M ARKED

F OR C OMPLAINANT :

Ex.P1 :Memorandum of Understanding dt.06.06.2018.

Ex.P2 :Cheque No.000351, dated 04.10.2018 for Rs.4,00,000/-.

Ex.P3 :Cheque Return Memo, dated 05.10.2018.

Ex.P4 :Office copy of legal notice dated 10.10.2018.

Ex.P5 :Postal Receipts dated 11.10.2018.

Ex.P6 :Acknowledgment Card dated 16.10.2018.

For Accused:Nil

VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HYDERABAD

:1: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MANORANJAN COMPLEX, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri. Jitin Kumar VII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad

Thursday, 27 th day of November, 2025

CC-NI.No. 12565 of 2022

(Old CC No.4028/2020 on the file of IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

Court, Hyderabad)

BETWEEN:

Kandhi Rajendar Reddy, S/o: Bal Reddy, Age: 34 yrs, Occ : Business, R/o: Chandrampet Village, Mandal and Dist: Rajanna Siricilla,

present at Hyderabad. ...Complainant.

AND

Kandhi Basker Reddy, S/o: Anji Reddy, Age: 27 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No. 1-73, Chandrampet Village,

Mandal and Dist: Rajanna Siricilla....Accused

Offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. R. Rammurty, Counsel for the Complainant and of Sri. Gajjala Venkata Reddy, Counsel for Accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed against the above named accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter be referred to as N.I.Act.

The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:

2.That the complainant and the accused are cousin brothers and out of the said relationship accused in the month of April, 2019 approached the complainant and requested to advance a sum of Rs.24.00 lakhs as a hand loan to meet his business domestic financial necessities and basing on the request of the accused, complainant on 11.04.2019 has advanced Rs.24.00 lakhs to :2: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022 accused and for which accused promised to repay the amount within 6 months.

Complainant further submitted that after completion of 6 months, when complainant requested for payment accused reported he will pay money on 18.12.2019 and issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 24.00 lakhs vide cheque

No. 083100 dated 18.12.2019, Gayathri Bank, Siricilla Branch, Ambedkar

Chowrasta, Vemulawada. Karimnagar District. Thereafter, complainant presented the cheque on the same day i.e., on 18.12.2019 for encashment through his bank i.e., HDFC Bank Ltd., Shivam Road Branch, Hyderabad and on presentation the cheque is dishonoured stating the reasons as ‘Funds

Insufficient’ and when the same is intimated to the accused accused further asked two days time, but unfortunately no money was paid after 2 days.

Thereafter complainant has got issued a legal notice through his Counsel on 07.01.2020 under Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due and accused received the notice on 10.01.2020, but did not reply. Complainant further submitted that accused delibaretly issued the cheque in favour of the complainant knowing that there was no sufficient funds in his bank account, towards discharge of legally enforceable liability of taking hand loan from the complainant which amounts to an offence punishable under Section 138 of

N.I.Act. Hence the complaint.

3.The complainant filed the complaint before the Hon’ble IV Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 18.02.2020 and numbered as

CC.No.4028 of 2020. As per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, this case is transferred to this Court on 18.04.2022 and re- numbered as CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022.

4. Upon the appearance of the accused, he was provided with a copy of the complaint and other relevant documents under Section 207 of the Code of Crim- inal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Thereafter accused was examined under Section 251 of :3: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022 the Cr.P.C., in which he reported that he had not taken any amount from the complainant and he has not issued or given cheque to the complainant and fur- ther reported that he has received the legal notice and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offence. Further no defence statement was filed on behalf of accused and matter was put for trial.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant examined himself as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 as documentary evidence. Ex.P1 is the

Cheque No.083100, dated 18.12.2019, Gayathri Bank, Siricilla Branch for

Rs.24,00,000/-, Ex.P2 is the original Cheque Return Memo, dated 19.12.2019. Ex.P3 is the legal notice dated 07.01.2020. Ex.P4 is the Postal

Receipt dated 07.01.2020. Ex. P5 is the Section 65-B certificate of the

Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P6 is the Postal Track Report and further no witnesses were examined.

6. PW.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the Accused. After the closure of the complainant’s evidence, Accused was examined U/Sec.313 of

Cr.P.C and reported that he don’t know anything about this case. Thereafter due to further reporting of no defence evidence by learned counsel for accused , this Court has closed the defence evidence and the matter was put for final arguments.

7. Heard the arguments on behalf of both sides and perused the record. After carefully hearing the arguments presented by both sides, the following points arise for determination:

Now the point for determination is that

(i)whether the cheque in question was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable liability or not;

(ii)whether the cheque was presented before the bank for encash ment within three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier or not; :4: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022

(iii)whether demand is made in writing by the payee or holder in due course by the issuance of a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of information from the bank of the return of the cheques or not; and

(iv)whether there is failure of the drawer to make the payment of the cheque amount to the payee or the holder in due course within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or not.

8.The short facts of the case are that complainant and accused are cousin brothers and out of the said relationship, complainant advanced a hand loan of

Rs.24.00 lakhs to the accused and for paying back the amount taken the accused had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant and when cheque was presented by the complainant to the bank it was dishonoured on the ground mentioned as ‘Funds Insufficient’.

9.In chief examination of PW.1, he reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and legal notice and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. In cross-examination of PW.1, he stated that he stated that he is resident of Nallakunta area from 10 years and he has mentioned his address in complaint as Chandrampet, Rajanna

Siricilla and further submitted that he is having 2 ½ acres property in Rajanna

Siricilla and that property is given on lease and from that lease he is getting an amount of Rs.20,000/- to 25,000/- and presently he is not doing any business.

PW.1 further submitted that one person namely Chandra Reddy had 5 daughters and one of the daughter name is Amrutha and husband of Amrutha was residing in the house of Chandra Reddy as illarikam Alludu and Chandra

Reddy elder daughter name is Suryamma. PW.1 further submitted that

Amrutha is issue-less. Complainant further submitted that Anji Reddy is brother of his father and accused is son of Anji Reddy. PW.1 further submitted that he do not know whether Amrutha entered into mortgage deed with Koppula

Rajesham vide Doc. No. 7849 of 2015 dated 17.12.2015 and through Shyam

Reddy, Koppula Rajesham gave an amount of Rs.2.00 lakh to the Amrutha.

:5: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022

PW.1 further submitted that a suit was filed against him by A.D. Ram

Chandraiah for not registering the above said land mentioned and is pending on the file of JCJ, Siricilla. PW.1 further submitted that he is an income tax assessee and he has not shown the present transaction in I.T. Returns. Pw.1 further submitted that he obtained a personal loan of Rs.15.00 lakhs from

HDFC bank to purchase a plot, but when accused asked him to lend a loan of

Rs. 24.00 lakhs, considering the request of the accused along with loan and personal savings he/complainant has given Rs. 24.00 lakhs to the accused.

PW.1 further submitted that he has not filed any document which is going to show that he had lent Rs.24.00 lakhs to the accused. PW.1 further added that as accused is his blood relation that is why he did not obtain any security. PW.1 further submitted that he do not know whose scribed the cheque. PW.1 further added that but it is the accused who issued the subject cheque to him. Pw.1 further stated that he is having no objection to send the cheque to FSL for examination of age of ink, signature with other contents and some suggestions were put by the learned counsel for accused.

10.I have gone through the entire record and carefully perused the evidence lead by the complainant only but before appreciating the facts of the case at length for arriving at any conclusion let the relevant position of law will discuss first :-

Before finding the conviction of the accused u/s 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, it has to be established by the complainant cumulatively that :

(i) the cheque in question was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in discharge of legally enforceable liability;

(ii)the cheque was presented before the bank for encashment within three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; :6: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022

(iii)a demand is made in writing by the payee or holder in due course by the issuance of a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of information from the bank of the return of the cheques; and

(iv)there is failure of the drawer to make the payment of the cheque amount to the payee or the holder in due course within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice.

11.This legal position was discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in case titled as MSR Leathers vs. S. Palaniappan (2013) 1 SCC 177, wherein it was held that, “6.……. The proviso to Section 138, however, is all important and stipulates three distinct conditions precedent, which must be satisfied before the dis-

honour of a cheque can constitute an offence and

become punishable. The first condition is that the cheque ought to have been presented to the bank within a period of t h re e months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its va- lidity, whichever is earlier. The second condition is that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, ought to make a de- mand 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 re- turn of the cheque as unpaid. The third condition is that the drawer of such a cheque should have failed to make 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. It is only upon the satisfaction of all the three conditions mentioned above and enumerated under the pro- viso to Section 138 as clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof that an offence under Section 138 can be said to have been committed by the person is- suing the cheque.

12.This Court shall now examine if the aforesaid four ingredients as described in the forgoing paragraph have been duly satisfied in this case or not.

That whether the cheque in dispute was presented within the period of its valid- :7: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022 ity or not has not been disputed by the accused at any stage of trial. In the case in hand since there is no dispute or any examination of witnesses by the ac- cused regarding the validity period of the cheques which is presented before the

Bank and in this case after perusal also this Court finds that the cheque was presented before the Bank within the statutory period. In the case in hand since there is no evidence placed on record by the accused to contradict or to disprove the validity period of the cheque. Accordingly, condition no. (ii), as above stands satisfied and in favour of the complainant.

13.In the present matter, accused has accepted the receiving of statutory le- gal demand notice at the time of Section 251 of Cr.P.C examination and he had the due notice of the pendency of present complaint case against him and de- spite which he had failed to make payment of cheque amount in question to the complainant. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, in case of C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty

Muhammed , (2007) 6 SCC 555, wherein it has been held as follows:

“ It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of sum- mons from the court in respect of the complaint un- der Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of sum- mons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As ob- :8: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022 served in Bhaskarans case (supra), if the giving of notice in the context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of notice a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act.

Accordingly, conditions No.(iii) and (iv) as above also stands satisfied in favour of the complainant as it is matter of record that accused had due notice of the pendency of the present complaint case and despite which he failed to make the payment of cheque in question to the complainant.

14.It is now only remains to be seen for the point No.(i) whether the accused issued the cheque in question i.e., Ex.P1 in favour of the complainant in order to discharge his legally enforceable liability or not.

15.Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e. Complainant in the present case, as soon as the execu- tion of cheque is proved. Firstly, under Section 118 (a) N.I. Act, with respect to the consideration that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for con- sideration and when such instrument has been accepted, transferred, negotiated or endorsed was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.

Secondly, a presumption under section 139 N.I. Act that it shall be presumed that the holder of cheque received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability unless contrary is proved.

Section 118 (a) of the N.I. Act provides :

“Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. —Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: of consideration —that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

Section 139 of the N.I. Act further provides as follows :-

“It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.” :9: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022

However, both the aforesaid presumptions are rebuttable in nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Basalingappa Vs.

Mudibasappa, Crl. Appeal No.636 of 2019 , (2019) 5 SCC 418: The same is produced as under :

23. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a) and139, we now summarise the princi- ples enumerated by this Court in following manner:

(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the dis- charge of any debt or other liability.

(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presump- tion and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable de- fence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.

(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable de- fence. 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.

(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the wit- ness box in support of his defence,Section 139 imposed an evi- dentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.

16.As per the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned Judgment, the presumptions u/s 118(a) read with Section 139 of the

Act has to be compulsorily raised against the accused once execution of cheque by the accused is either admitted by him, or is proved by the complainant, and thereafter the burden is shifted upon accused to prove otherwise. These pre- sumptions shall be rebutted only when the contrary is proved by the accused i.e., the cheque was not issued for any consideration, or in discharge of any debt or liability.

17.In the instant case, accused has not admitted his signature on the cheque in question and issuance of the cheque, in answer to notice framed u/s :10: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022 251 Cr.P.C as well as in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C but after perusal of docket proceedings, accused accepted to settle the matter. In the case in hand after pe- rusal of the examinations done by this Court on accused and on each and every questions accused has said that everything is false, he has not issued the cheque, he has not signed the cheque and whole story of the prosecution is false and whatever PW.1 said that is also false but nowhere accused was telling about how his cheque was landed into the custody of the complainant. Giving an- swers under examination by saying that every story of the prosecution is false without leading any material or evidence before the Court is of no use. So at each and every point of examination, accused said whole story of the prosecu- tion is false and he has nothing to do with the transaction. After perusal of the file, this court finds that accused though in Sec.313 Cr.P.C said that he intend to lead the evidence but after further perusal, this Court finds that no evidence had been lead on behalf of Accused.

18.In the case in hand, after perusal of the file, this Court finds that PW.1 has stated that he being the relative of the accused has given an amount of

Rs.24,00,000/- on his/accused request and accused executed a cheque in favour of the complainant to repay the amount of Rs.24,00,000/-. In the case in hand after perusal of whole record this Court finds that Accused failed to gave any reasonable explanation regarding the fact that how their cheques were landed into the custody of complainant and if their cheques were lost some where whether he have filed any complaint before any proper authority and in whole cross examination of PW.1 no where asked questions whether accused is- sued the cheque or signature on cheque or execution of cheque. After perusing the Section 251 Cr.P.C examination and Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination and after finding no reasonable answer from Accused regarding the fact that how their cheques were landed in to the custody of complainant and after perusing the :11: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022 chief affidavit of PW.1, this Court finds that and in view of this discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that a presumption u/s 139 r/w Sec- tion 118(a) N.I. Act can duly be raised against the accused by saying that Nego- tiable Instrument was made and drawn for consideration and the cheques were received for the discharge of debt liability. Accordingly point No.(i) is stands satis- fied in favour of the complainant.

19.Since the above said two presumptions has been duly raised against the accused our next point of determination is that whether the accused is able to rebut the abovesaid presumptions or not. It is now a settled law that accused can rebut these presumption on a scale of standard of pre ponderance of proba- bilities, and to rebut these presumptions it is open for the accused to rely upon the direct evidence lead by himself, or in the exceptional cases, the accused can also rely on materials submitted by the complainant i.e. (statutory notice, evidence etc.) during the trial in order to raise a probable defence. Reliance in this regard, can be placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC.

“………………………………Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the lia- bility of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, …, it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. "It introduces an exception to the gen- eral rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused" (ibid). Such a presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which describes provisions by which the court "may presume" a certain state of af- fairs. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence show- :12: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022 ing the reasonable possibility of the non existence of the presumed fact. In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law ex- ists, no discretion is left with the Court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the per- son against whom the presumption is drawn from re- butting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, "after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its exis- tence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists". Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evi- dence must be adduced before the Court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the de- fence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'.”

20.In the backdrop of legal position as enunciated above, it is now to be ex- amined by this Court that whether the accused on a scale of preponderance of probabilities has been able to rebut the presumptions which has been raised against him and in favour of the complainant, or has been able to demolish the case of the complainant to such extent so as to shift the onus placed upon the accused back again on the complainant, and if the Court comes to the conclu- sion that accused has not been able to rebut the presumptions raised against him by failing to bring on record direct evidence or by even failing to sufficiently perforate the case of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to a decision in his favour.

21.In light of the aforesaid legal position, this Court shall now examine that whether the accused has been able to prove his defence in affirmative or not, by carrying out scrutiny of the evidence which has been led at the trial but in the case in hand since there is no evidence has been given from the side of the ac- cused and due to non production of evidence from the side of Accused evidence of defence is closed.

:13: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022

22.After upon a careful perusal of Ex.P1 i.e., Cheque of Rs.24,00,000/-, it is revealed that it bears signature of the accused and it is a cheque of accused ac- count, Ex.P2 is the cheque return memo which reveals that Ex.P1 is dishonored,

Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice, which reveals that legal notice was pre- pared by the learned counsel for complainant, Ex.P4 is the postal receipt and

Ex.P5 is the Sec.65-B Certificate and Ex.P6 is the Postal Track Report. How- ever, in the instant case accused neither examined himself as a witness nor any- body else in the court nor not produced any evidence before this Court further more accused fail to disclose how property of complainant in Siricilla and Chan- dra Reddy along with his daughter one Anji Reddy, Kopula Rajesham is con- nected with this cheque i.e., Ex.P1 and with this case. After perusal of whole exhibits, this Court finds that the cheques were issued for the legal enforceable debt and subsequently that was dishonored and subsequently the payment of the same was not made. Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 fully corroborated towards the fact that

Negotiable Instrument is given to complainant for legally enforceable debt and subsequently it has been bounced/dishonored and committed the offence.

23.In the case in hand after perusal of the whole record this Court finds that during the entire cross examination of PW.1 the counsel for the accused did not elicit anything from PW.1 which discredit the contention of the complainant and did not ask any question regarding the issuance of the cheque and signature on the cheque but a desperate attempt made that accused issued the said cheque to one Satyam Reddy for security purpose without filing any piece of document or any evidence is of no use. In the cross examination of PW.1, it is the con- tention of the accused that he has given cheque to one Satyam Reddy but ac- cused failed to examine Satyam Reddy as his defence witness and further failed to file any documentary evidence regarding the same. In the case in hand when complainant issued notice i.e., Ex.P3, on 07.01.2020 the accused received the :14: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022 notice but did not prefer to give any reply of the notice neither paid the cheque amount. In the case in hand during the pendency of the trial, after perusal of docket proceedings, it shows that accused admitted before this Court that he will settle the matter with the complainant and get it compromise and even after recording the same and time given by this Court, accused failed to settle the matter or failed to pay any amount or failed to any effect of compromise. In the case in hand, when accused accepts to settle the matter, he simultaneously ac- cepts the liability, on one hand accused is saying whole story is false and on docket it is found that he intends to settle the matter this is itself contradictory in nature.

24.In the case in hand, the compliant discloses the prima facie existence of legally enforceable debt since the contention of the complainant that accused being a relative obtained a hand loan of Rs.24,00,000/- and got issued Ex.P1 and from the cross examination of PW.1, nothing substantial material was ex- tracted to discredit his testimony. The evidence of PW.1 is reliable, unshaken and in corroboration with the documentary evidence ie., Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and this Court finds that the act of the accused of not honoring the cheque know- ingly that there are no funds in his account for payment of legally enforceable debt clearly attracts the provisions of Sec. 138 of NI Act.

25.After perusal of the whole record including the statement under Section 251 Cr.P.C and when answers given in Section 313 Cr.P.C and in view of the above discussion as well as no contradiction is found in the statement given by

PW.1 and the defence version taken by the accused at the time of oral argument is devoid of any merit and liable to be rejected.

26.In the considered opinion of the Court, in order to prove the fact that com- plainant lacked sources of funds, as he could have called for the documents re- :15: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022 garding the sources of funds of the complainant and mere a contradiction in the statement of the complainant is not enough to disprove the case of the com- plainant in entirety. Moreover, in the instant case neither the accused examined himself neither produce any document to disprove any contention of the com- plainant.

27.Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this argument of Ld. counsel for the accused at the stage of final arguments appears only a belated attempt to cast some doubt on the case of the complainant which is devoid of any merits and is liable to be rejected. Hence, the accused has failed to rebut the presump- tion raised against him u/s 139 r/w 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act in present case.

28.Learned Counsel for the accused never asked questions to PW.1 that whether the cheque in question was given as blank signed security cheque to the complainant or whether the cheques were had been misused by the com- plainant and putting mere suggestions without leading any evidence is of no use, it is a bare statement and does not shake the credit of witness. However, in order to prove the aforesaid no defence version is placed before this Court and no credible evidence in support has been lead by the accused. Hence, oral sub- missions without supporting any reliable document or evidence cannot be con- sidered and is liable to be rejected.

29.In view of the above, this court is of the considered opinion that the ac- cused could not raise a probable defence in order to rebut the presumption un- der section 139 r/w section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act. The com- plainant disclosed the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability vide the cheque in question, return memo, legal notice and other documents brought on :16: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022 record. In my view there is sufficient material on record to conclude that com- plainant has successfully proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.

30.Accordingly, the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Typed to my dictation to Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 27 th day of November, 2025

VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HYDERABAD.

31. Though as per section 255 of Criminal Procedure Code, hearing of the accused on the quantum of sentence is not within the ambit of the said section. Though the section does not manifest on hearing of the accused on quantum of sentence, still this court is of an opinion that the accused must be given an opportunity for hearing him on the quantum of sentence while imposing punishment in the interest of Justice and to meet the ends of justice.

32. The accused is heard on quantum of sentence, he stated that his father was expired and he is the only person to look after his mother and wife and pleaded mercy and prayed this court to take a lenient view.

33. The three cheques amounts in this case is for Rs.24,00,000/- and twice the amount of cheque would come to Rs.48,00,000/-.

32. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and consequently Accused is convicted U/sec.255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Two (02) Years and also sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.40,00,000/- :17: Fair judgment of CC-NI No. 12565 of 2022 (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) to the complainant within one (01) month and in default of payment of fine, Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six (06) Months. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for the period of Six (6) months in terms of section 437-A of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Office is directed to furnish a free copy of this

Judgment to the accused under proper acknowledgment as per Sec.363

Cr.P.C r/w Rule 72 of Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990.

No order as to property.

Typed to my dictation to Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 27 th day of November, 2025

Sd/-

VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HYDERABAD.

Note: After issuing notice to complainant and accused, both the parties appeared on 02.12.2025. After exercising the powers U/Sec. 362 Cr.P.C as it is a clerical error, hence for period of two (02) years is altered to six (06) months in the default sentence.

A PPENDIX O F E VIDENCE

W ITNESSES E XAMINED

F OR C OMPLAINANT

PW1 -K. Rajendar Reddy

F OR D EFENSE

Nil

E XHIBITS M ARKED

F OR C OMPLAINANT :

Ex.P1 :Cheque No.083100, dt:18.12.2019, for Rs.24,00,000/-.

Ex.P2 :Cheque Return Memo, dated 19.12.2019.

Ex.P3 :Office copy of legal notice dated 07.01.2020.

Ex.P4 :Postal Receipt dated 07.01.2020.

Ex.P5 :Section 65-B certificate of the Indian Evidence Act.

Ex.P6 :Postal Track Report

For Accused:Nil

Sd/-

VII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HYDERABAD

//True Copy//