Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VENKATAGIRI

Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka) · Nellore · Andhra Pradesh

Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VENKATAGIRI, is posted at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka), Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. 108 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, CRL cases.

108

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/100335/2016 Convicted

Kodavaluru Prasad vs Penubali Ravi Kumar

11 Jul 2019

CC 335/16 in Old CC No 304/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GUDUR

Present: Smt. K.Jayalakshmi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur.

Thursday, this the 11th day of July, 2019.

C.C.No. 335 of 2016

Kodavaluru Prasad, S/o Late Venkaiah Naidu, Hindu, aged about 63 years, house wife, Resident of D.No. 6/9 Pulathota Street, East Gudur Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore

District...... Complainant.

Vs.

Penuballi Ravi Kumar, S/o Sudhakar Naidu, Hindu, aged about 38 years, Business, Kalayakagalu Village, Buchi mandal,

SPSR Nellore District...... Accused.

This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Hari Prasad, Counsel for the complainant and Sri J. Vamsi Krishna, Counsel

for the accused, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, on perusing the

record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

This is the Private complaint filed against the accused for the offence U/s 138 r/w 142 of N.I Act.

2.The Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs 1,00,000/- ( rupees one lakh only) from the complainant on 6.6.2013 for his necessities and business purpose and executed a pronote in favour of complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 36% p.a. and again on Rs 2,00,000/- on 7.12.2013, and again on 9.10.2014 for Rs 1,00,000/- from him respectively and executed two promissory notes agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. On the demand of complainant the accused had issued a cheque bearing No 613889 in favour of complainant on 29.12.2015 for Rs 6,20,000/- towards full satisfaction of the pronote amount, drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad,

Gudur branch. On the same day i.e., 29.12.2015 he presented the cheque for collection, the cheque was returned with remarks that the 22

CC 335/16 in Old CC No 304/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

account was closed. Immediately on 7.1.2016 he got issued a registered legal notice to the accused and said notice was returned unserved on 16.1.2016 with postal endorsement that the party not in the village. The accused managed to return the notice though he was in the village as he is a ration shop dealer. As the accused did not complied the demand and did not pay the amount covered under the above cheque, hence the complaint.

3.On perusal of the material available on record including the sworn statement of the complainant, this case was taken into cognizance by this court for the offence U/s 138 r/w 142 of N.I act against the accused.

4.After appearance of accused, copies were supplied to him as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C., and thereafter he was examined U/s 251 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the offence U/s 138 and 142 of N.I Act, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the complainant examined PW1,

PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7 .

6. After closure of complainant evidence the accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C ., and I explained the incriminating evidence appeared against him in Telugu, for which the accused denied the evidence of prosecution and reported he has defence evidence on his behalf. Later the accused reported no defence evidence.

7.The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the evidence of the PW1 and 2 coupled with the documents Ex.P1 to P7 clearly and directly supporting the version of the complainant case, hence the accused can be convicted for the offence U/s 138 of N.I Act.

On other hand the learned counsel for the accused, argued that the 33

CC 335/16 in Old CC No 304/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

complainant has no capacity to lend the money and the cheque was not issued to the complainant for the discharge of the legal enforceable debt and the complaint is barred by limitation, hence the accused is not liable for the offence U/s 138 of N.I Act.

8.Now the following points arise for determination in this case:-

1. “Whether the accused has issued the cheque to the complainant for the discharge of the legally enforceable debt” ?

2. “ Whether the complainant has proved his case for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

9.For the reasons to be recorded hereafter, my finding is as under:

FINDING

Point No. 1 - -Yes -

Point No. 2- -Yes -

Final order:- The accused is convicted as per operative part of judgment.

Reasons in support of my finding

1. “Whether the accused has issued the cheque to the complainant for the discharge of the legally enforceable debt” ?

2. “ Whether the complainant has proved his case for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10. POINT No. 1 “Whether the accused has issued the cheque to the complainant for the discharge of the legally enforceable debt” ?

11.The allegation raised by the accused is that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs 1,00,000/- on 6.6.2013, Rs 2,00,000/- on 7.12.2013 and Rs 1,00,000 on 9.10.2014 respectively and executed a 44

CC 335/16 in Old CC No 304/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

promissory notes agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 36% p.a borrowed on 6.6.2013 and at the rate of 24% p.a for the amounts borrowed on 7.12.2013 , 9.10.2014 and when he demanded back the amounts the accused issued a cheque/Ex.P1 on 29.12.2015 for

Rs 6,20,000/- towards full satisfaction under three pronotes debt drawn on H.D.F.C Bank, Nelllore branch and same was presented the cheque/Ex.P1 in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Gudur branch for collection and the cheque was returned with a memo that the account was closed. In support of his case the complainant himself examined as

PW1 and also examined PW2/Kodavaluru Vasantha who is the attestor of the pronotes Ex.P2 to P7. PW1 and 2 deposed in the same lines. PW1 and he reiterated the same facts of his complaint in his affidavit of chief examination. However, he deposed that on 29.12.2015 he presented the cheque/Ex.P1 in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Gudur branch for collection and on 1.1.2016 the cheque was returned with remarks that the account closed then he got issued legal notice on 7.1.2016 and same was returned. In his cross examination he clearly admitted that on 6.6.2013, 7.12.2013, 9.10.2014 he gave money of Rs 1,00,000/- , Rs 2,00,000/- and Rs 1,00,000/- to the accused and accused executed a three pronotes in above said dates, at that time PW2 and complainant son-in-law one Audisheshaiah were present and they attested the pronotes/Ex.P5 to P7. In the view of the evidence of PW1, the cheque/Ex.P1 was issued by the accused in discharge of legal enforceable debt i.e., for the discharge of debt under three pronotes

dated 6.6.2013, 7.12.2013, 9.10.2014 respectively.

12.On other hand the learned counsel for accused contended that the accused has no financial transaction with complainant the complainant took the blank signed cheques during complainant monitory transaction with accused uncles with one Penuballi Sridhar 55

CC 335/16 in Old CC No 304/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

babu and Penuballi Surendra Babu. Taking advantage of the said blank signed cheques the complainant filed this complaint. He also put the suggestion to the PW1 on this aspect, but same was denied by PW1. In the view of the contention raised by the counsel for accused, of course it is true that the accused executed/issued cheque/Ex.P1. Therefore, if once execution of cheque and issuance of cheque in question in the complaint for the cheque amount, and if the accused admitted that the cheque issued by him, it is incumbent of the court to draw presumption

U/s 139 of N.I Act unless contrary is proved, and accordingly the complainant in this case is certainly entitle to avail benefit of presumption U/s 139 of N.I Act.

13.The contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused issued the cheque/Ex.P1 to the complainant without filling the cheque and it was not issued for legal enforceable debt, hence the complainant has no right to avail presumption u/s 139 of N.I Act. However, their lordships have elaborately discussed about the entitlement of presumption U/s 139 of N.I Act and its applicability.

14.Particularly a citation of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala reported in 2007 Crl.J.3124(KER) held that: If the holder has to avail the benefit of presumption under Section 139 of NI Act, the burden is on him to establish the following three requisites

1. that a person whose favour the presumption is wrong is the holder of the cheuqe;

2. that the cheuqe is of the nature stated in Section 139 of the Act;

3. that such cheque is received by the holder.

15. Now in the present case in hand, the evidence of PW1 and

PW2 coupled with documents of Ex. P1 to P7 clearly reveal that the 66

CC 335/16 in Old CC No 304/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

accused issued the Ex.P1 to the complainant for Rs 6,20,000/- ( rupees six lakhs twenty thousand only) towards full satisfaction of debts under three pronotes dated 6.6.2013, 7.12.2013, 9.10.2014 respectively therefore PW1 is receiver and holder of the cheque which is of nature stated in Sec 138 of N.I Act. Under these circumstances it can be said that the aforesaid three requisites for drawing the presumption U/s 139 of N.I act are satisfied.

16.No doubt, the presumption U/s 138 of N.I Act is rebuttable presumption, and if the accused by the preponderance of evidence has discharged the burden contemplated U/s 138 of N.I act, the burden would shifts to the complainant to prove all the ingredience of Sec 138 of N.I act beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case in hand the main contention raised by the accused is that the cheque/Ex.P1 was not issued to the complainant for legally enforceable debt. He gave a blank cheques to the complainant during the monitory transaction among the complainant and his uncles one Penuballi Sridhar Babu and Penuballi

Surendra Babu . But in support of his version no evidence adduced by the accused and no evidence is there to believe the monitory transaction in between complainant and accused uncles Penuballi

Sridhar Babu and Surendra Babu. The accused neither gave a details nor produced any proof relating to the circumstances in which the cheque was issued to the complainant . Though he failed to adduce evidence on his behalf, the accused had an opportunity to elicit the facts for the proof of his case from the cross examination of PW1. But in this case there is no disturbance in the cross examination of PW1 and nothing is elicited contrary to the case of the complainant.

17.The main contention raised by the learned counsel for accused that the complainant has no capacity to lend the Rs 6,20,000/- h and the accused did not issued the cheque/Ex.P1 to the complainant 77

CC 335/16 in Old CC No 304/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

for discharging legal enforceable debt. On this aspect he put the suggestion to the PW1 and PW2 but they denied the same . On this aspect he also relied upon :

(2017) ACD 721 : (2017) LW(Cri)763: (2017) 2 MadWN(Cri) 98

MADRAS HIGH COURT

K. DHANABAKKIYAM -Appellant

MS. THIRUMALA WASS DECORS-RESPONDENT

(2016) 2 LAR 509

KULDIP SINGH - Appellant

PARAMJIT KAUR-Respondent

18.I have gone through the aforesaid cases referred and noticed that the factual aspects discussed therein are entirely different from the set of facts discussed in hand however the PW1 admitted in his cross examination that he was Government Teacher and he was retired from the service and lend the retirement benefits to the accused.

When the counsel for accused suggested the PW1 that he has no capacity to lend the amount of Rs 6,20,000/- he denied the same. From the evidence of PW1 and 2 it is very much clear that complainant lend the amounts Rs 1,00,000/- + Rs 2,00,000/- + Rs 1,00,000/- on 6.6.2013, 7.12.2013, 9.10.2014 out of his retirement benefits thus the evidence of

PW1 goes to speak that he has capacity to lend the amounts. Though the accused failed to file the proof showing incapacity of complainant to lend the amount of Rs 4 lakhs. He can prove by cross examining the

PW1, though the accused cross examined the PW1 but nothing is elicited contrary to the complainant case hence there is no force in the contention raised by the accused counsel. All this facts reveal that the 88

CC 335/16 in Old CC No 304/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

accused has failed to rebutt the presumption U/s 139 of N.I Act by preponderance of evidence.

19.For the reasons discussed that, it can safely concluded that the accused had issued Ex.P1 to the complainant for the discharge of legal enforceable debt. Accordingly Point 1 is answered in favour of complainant and against the accused.

20.Point No 2 “ Whether the complainant has proved his case for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

Since it is clearly prove that the accused had issued cheuqe/Ex.P1 to the complainant for the discharge of legal enforceable debt, the court has to see whether the complainant has followed the procedure lay down U/s 138 and 142 of Act as per PW1 he presented the cheque on 29.12.2015 in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Gudur branch and same was returned to the remarks that the account was closed on 1.1.2016, then she got issued legal notice to accused on 7.1.2016 and same was returned with endorsement that the accused not in the village and then he filed the complaint within the statutory period. In this concerned the learned counsel for accused argued that the complainant is barred by the limitation. Primarily there is no dispute regarding bounds of cheque, issuance of notice, but the counsel for accused,disputing on the limitation aspect under Sec 142 of N.I Act wherein the :

Hon’ble High court of A.P held in 2003 (2) L.S. 120

Pennar Steel Ltd., Vs., S.Ansari and another

21.That the cause of action under clause (c) of the proviso to

Sec 138 arises on the expiry of the period of 15 days stipulated there 99

CC 335/16 in Old CC No 304/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

under and according to clause (b) of Sec 142, the complaint shall be made within one month thereafter. Now in this case after receiving the postal acknowledgment of the legal notice with postal endorsement that the accused was not in the village was returned unserved on 16.1.2016, hence the period of 15 days starts from the dates 16.1.2016, and the complaint has to file on or before 31.1.2016, and the complainant has to file on or before 2.3.2016. Undisputedly the complainant unable to file the present complaint on 12.2.2016, therefore it can be said that the complaint is within the limitation.

22.Now in the present case in hand the counsel for accused contended that the accused gave blank cheque to the complainant husband and it was materially altered. However, it is an established principle that even if a blank cheque has been given towards liability, if the cheque is filled up and presented to the bank, the person who has draw the cheque can not avoid the criminal liability arising out of the sec 138 of N.I Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused can not be viewed seriously.

23. In the view of all this facts and circumstances it can safely concluded that the complainant successfully proved guilty of the accused for the offence U/s 138 of N.I Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

24.In the result the accused is found guilty for the offence U/s 138 of N.I Act and accordingly he is convicted U/s 255(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offence.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III directly on system corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th day of July, 2019.

Sd/-K. Jayalakshmi

PRL . JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -

CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GUDUR.

101

CC 335/16 in Old CC No 304/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

25.On questioning about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against the accused U/s 138 of N.I Act, he stated that he is the bread winner to his family and his old age parents are depended on him. This court is not in favour of exercising any power U/s 360 of Cr.P.C and probation of offenders Act, since this case is related to dishonor of cheques which is involved an amount of Rs 6,20,000/-(rupees six lakhs twenty thousand only).

26.In the result the accused is sentenced to under go Simple

Imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay fine of Rs 1,000/- in default of payment of fine he should suffer Simple imprisonment for two months. The remand period if any shall be set off U/s 428 of Cr.P.C the accused is informed about his right of appeal against the sentence imposed by this court. The office is directed to supply copy of judgment immediately to the accused at free of cost.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III directly on system corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th day of July, 2019.

Sd/-K. Jayalakshmi

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GUDUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION :

P.W.1 : Kodavaluru Prasad P.W.2 : Kodavaluru Vasantha

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

EXHIBI TS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

1.Ex.P1:Cheque dated 29.12.2015 for Rs 6,20,000/- bearing No 613889 on HDFC Bank, Nellore 111

CC 335/16 in Old CC No 304/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

2.Ex.P2: Cheque return memo dated 1.1.2016 issued by the H.D.F.C Bank, Nellore. 3.Ex.P3: Copy of the legal notice dated 7.1.2016. 4.Ex.P4: un-served cover. 5.Ex.P5: Certified copy of the pronote dated 6.6.2013 executed by the accused for Rs 1,00,000/- 6.Ex.P6: certified copy of the pronote dated 7.12.2013 executed by the accused for Rs 2,00,000/- 7.Ex.P7: certified copy of the pronote dated 9.10.2014 executed by the accused for Rs 1,00,000/-.

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

Id/-xxxxxx

P.JC.J cum J.F.C.M. GUDUR 121

CC 335/16 in Old CC No 304/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

CC/100340/2016 Convicted

Kodavaluru Vasantha vs Penuballi Ravi Kumar

11 Jul 2019

CC 340/16 in Old CC No 543/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GUDUR

Present: Smt. K.Jayalakshmi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur.

Thursday, this the 11th day of July, 2019.

C.C.No. 340 of 2016

Kodavaluru Vasantha, W/o Kodavaluru Prasad, Hindu, aged about 61 years, house wife, Resident of D.No. 6/9 Pulathota Street, East Gudur Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore

District...... Complainant.

Vs.

Penuballi Ravi Kumar, S/o Sudhakar Naidu, Hindu, aged about 38 years, Business, Kalayakagalu Village, Buchi mandal,

SPSR Nellore District...... Accused.

This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri

K. Hari Prasad, Counsel for the complainant and Sri J. Vamsi Krishna, Counsel

for the accused, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, on perusing the

record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

This is the Private complaint filed against the accused for the offence U/s 138 r/w 142 of N.I Act.

2.The Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs 1,00,000/- ( rupees one lakh only) from the complainant on 5.8.2013 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. On the demand of complainant the accused had issued a cheque bearing No 613892 dated 29.12.2015 for Rs 1,00,000/-( rupees one lakh only ) towards part payment of the pronote amount, drawn on

H.D.F.C bank, Nellore branch. On 29.12.2015 he presented a cheque

before the State Bank of Hyderabad, Gudur branch for collection, but on

1.1.2016 the cheque was returned with memo that the account closed.

CC 340/16 in Old CC No 543/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

Immediately on 7.1.2016 she got issued a registered legal notice to the accused and said notice was unserved on 16.1.2016 with postal endorsement that the party not in the village. The accused managed to return the notice though he was in the village as he is a ration shop dealer. As the accused did not complied the demand and did not pay the amount covered under the above cheque, hence the complaint.

5.During the course of trial, the complainant examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 .

7.I heard the arguments from both sides. The accused counsel filed written arguments.

8.The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the evidence of the PW1 and 2 coupled with the documents Ex.P1 to P5 clearly and directly supporting the version of the complainant case, hence the accused can be convicted for the offence U/s 138 of N.I Act.

CC 340/16 in Old CC No 543/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

On other hand the learned counsel for the accused, argued that the complainant has no capacity to lend the money and the cheque was not issued to the complainant for the discharge of the legal enforceable debt and the complaint is barred by limitation, hence the accused is not liable for the offence U/s 138 of N.I Act.

9.Now the following points arise for determination in this case:-

1. “Whether the accused has issued the cheque to the complainant for the discharge of the legally enforceable debt” ?

2. “ Whether the complainant has proved his case for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10.For the reasons to be recorded hereafter, my finding is as under:

FINDING

Point No. 1 - -Yes -

Point No. 2- -Yes -

Final order:- The accused is convicted as per operative part of judgment.

Reasons in support of my finding

1. “Whether the accused has issued the cheque to the complainant for the discharge of the legally enforceable debt” ?

2. “ Whether the complainant has proved his case for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

11. POINT No. 1 “Whether the accused has issued the cheque to the complainant for the discharge of the legally enforceable debt” ?

12.The allegation raised by the accused is that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs 1,00,000/- ( rupees one lakh) from her on 44

CC 340/16 in Old CC No 543/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

5.8.2013 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a and when he demanded back the amount the accused issued a cheque/Ex.P1 on 29.12.2015 for Rs 1,00,000/- towards part satisfaction of the pronote debt drawn on

H.D.F.C Bnak, Nelllore branch and same was returned with a memo that the account was closed. In support of her case the complainant herself examined as PW1 and also examined PW2/Kodavaluru Prasad who is the attestor of the pronote. PW1 and 2 deposed in the same lines. PW1 and she reiterated the same facts of her complaint in her affidavit of chief examination. However, she deposed that on 29.12.2015 she presented the cheque/Ex.P1 in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Gudur branch for collection and on 1.1.2016 the cheque was returned with remarks that the account closed then she got issued legal notice on 7.1.2016 and same was returned. In her cross examination she clearly admitted that on 5.8.2013 she gave money of Rs 1,00,000/- to the accused and accused executed a pronote to her at that time PW2 and one Kodavaluru

Vasanta were present and attested the pronote. In the view of the evidence of PW1, the cheque/Ex.P1 was issued by the accused in discharge of legal enforceable debt i.e., for the discharge of debt under the pronote dated 5.8.2013.

13.On other hand the learned counsel for accused contended that the accused has no financial transaction with complainant the complainant husband took the blank signed cheques and same was filled by the complainant and filed this complaint. He also put the suggestion to the PW1 on this aspect, but same was denied by PW1. In the view of the contention raised by the counsel for accused, of course it is true that the accused executed/issued cheque/Ex.P1. Therefore, if once execution of cheque and issuance of cheque in question in the complaint for the cheque amount, and if the accused admitted that the 55

CC 340/16 in Old CC No 543/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

cheque issued by him, it is incumbent of the court to draw presumption

U/s 139 of N.I Act unless contrary is proved, and accordingly the complainant in this case is certainly entitle to avail benefit of presumption U/s 139 of N.I Act.

14.The contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused issued the cheque/Ex.P1 to the complainant husband without filling the cheque and it was not issued for legal enforceable debt, hence the complainant has no right to avail presumption u/s 139 of N.I Act. However, their lordships have elaborately discussed about the entitlement of presumption U/s 139 of

N.I Act and its applicability.

15.Particularly a citation of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala reported in 2007 Crl.J.3124(KER) held that: If the holder has to avail the benefit of presumption under Section 139 of NI Act, the burden is on him to establish the following three requisites

1. that a person whose favour the presumption is wrong is the holder of the cheuqe;

2. that the cheuqe is of the nature stated in Section 139 of the Act;

3. that such cheque is received by the holder.

16. Now in the present case in hand, the evidence of PW1 and 2 coupled with documents of Ex. P1 to P5 clearly reveal that the accused issued the Ex.P1 to the complainant for Rs 1,00,000/- ( one lakh only) towards part satisfaction of debt under pronote dated 5.8.2013, therefore PW1 is receiver and holder of the cheque which is of nature stated in Sec 138 of N.I Act. Under these circumstances it can be said that the aforesaid three requisites for drawing the presumption U/s 139 of N.I act are satisfied.

CC 340/16 in Old CC No 543/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

17.No doubt, the presumption U/s 138 of N.I Act is rebuttable presumption, and if the accused by the preponderance of evidence has discharged the burden contemplated U/s 138 of N.I act, the burden would shifts to the complainant to prove all the ingredience of Sec 138 of N.I act beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case in hand the main contention raised by the accused is that the cheque/Ex.P1 was not issued to the complainant for legally enforceable debt. He gave a blank cheques to the complainant husband during the monitory transaction among complainant husband and accused uncles Penuballi Sridhar Babu and Penuballi Surendra Babu. But in support of his version no evidence adduced by the accused and no evidence is there to believe the monitory transaction in between complainant husband and one

Penuballi Sridhar Babu and Surendra Babu. The accused neither gave a details nor produced any proof relating to the circumstances in which the cheque was issued to the complainant husband. Though he failed to adduce evidence on his behalf, the accused had an opportunity to elicit the facts for the proof of his case from the cross examination of PW1.

But in this case there is no disturbance in the cross examination of PW1 and nothing is elicited contrary to the case of the complainant.

18.The main contention raised by the learned counsel for accused that the complainant has no capacity to lend the Rs 1 lakh and the accused did not issued the cheque/Ex.P1 to the complainant for discharging legal enforceable debt. On this aspect he put the suggestion to the PW1 and PW2 but they denied the same . On this aspect he also relied upon :

(2017) ACD 721 : (2017) I LW(Cri)763: (2017) 2 MadWN(Cri) 98,

K. Dhanabakkiyam

MS. Tirumala wall decors, 77

CC 340/16 in Old CC No 543/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

(2016) 2 LAR 509

Kuldip singh

Paramjit kaur.

19.I have gone through the aforesaid cases referred and noticed that the factual aspects discussed therein are entirely different from the set of facts discussed in hand however the PW1 admitted in her cross examination that her husband was retired and retirement benefits was in her custody and to support her the complainant got examined her husband as PW2 and the PW2/Kodavaluru Prasad supported the PW1 evidence and when the counsel for accused suggested the PW2 that the complainant has no capacity to lend the amount under Ex.P5 he denied the same. From the evidence of PW1 and 2 it is clear that the complainant husband was employee and his retired benefits was kept in the custody of complainant therefore the evidence of PW1 and 2 goes to speaks that the complainant has capacity to lend the Rs 1,00,000/-. Though the accused failed to file the proof showing the incapacity of complainant to lend Rs 1,00,000/-. He can prove by cross examining the PW1, though the accused cross examined the PW1 but nothing is elicited contrary to the complainant case hence there is no force in the contention raised by the accused counsel. All this facts reveal that the accused has failed to rebutt the presumption U/s 139 of

N.I Act by preponderance of evidence.

20.For the reasons discussed that, it can safely concluded the accused had issued Ex.P1 to the complainant for the discharge of legal enforceable debt. Accordingly Point 1 is answered in favour of complainant and against the accused.

CC 340/16 in Old CC No 543/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

21.Point No 2 “ Whether the complainant has proved his case for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

Since it is clearly prove that the accused had issue cheuqe/Ex.P1 to the complainant for the discharge of legal enforceable debt, the court has to see whether the complainant has followed the procedure lay down U/s 138 and 142 of Act as per PW1 he presented the cheque on 29.12.2015 in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Gudur branch and same was returned to the remarks that the account was closed on 1.1.2016, then she got issued legal notice to accused on 7.1.2016 and same was returned with endorsement that the accused not in the village and then he filed the complaint within the statutory period. In this concerned the learned counsel for accused argued that the complainant is barred by the limitation. Primarily there is no dispute regarding bounds of cheque, issuance of notice, but the counsel for accused,disputing on the limitation aspect under Sec 142 of N.I Act.

Wherein the: Hon’ble High court of A.P held in 2003 (2) L.S. 120

Pennar Steel Ltd., Vs VS., S.Ansari and another that the cause of action under clause (c) of the proviso to Sec 138 arises on the expiry of the period of 15 days stipulated there under and according to clause (b) of Sec 142, the complaint shall be made within one month thereafter.

Now in this case after receiving the postal acknowledgment of the legal notice with postal endorsement that the accused was not in the village was returned unserved on 16.1.2016, hence the period of 15 days starts from the dates 16.1.2016, and the complaint has to file on or before 31.1.2016, and the complainant has to file on or before 2.3.2016.

Undisputedly the complainant unable to file the present complaint on 12.2.2016, therefore it can be said that the complaint is within the limitation.

CC 340/16 in Old CC No 543/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

24.In the result the accused is found guilty for the offence U/s 138 of N.I Act and accordingly he is convicted U/s 255(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offence.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III directly on system corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th day of July, 2019.

Sd/-K. Jayalakshmi

PRL . JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -

CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GUDUR.

101

CC 340/16 in Old CC No 543/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

26.In the result the accused is sentenced to under go Simple

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III Copyist directly on system corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th day of July, 2019.

Sd/- K. Jayalakshmi

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GUDUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION :

P.W.1 : Kodavaluru Vasantha P.W.2 : Kodavaluru Prasad

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

EXHIBI TS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 The cheque dated 29.12.2015 for Rs 1,00,000/- bearing No 613892 on HDFC Bank, Nellore. Ex.P2 cheque return memo dated 1.1.2016 issued by the HDFC bank, Nellore. Ex.P3 copy of the legal notice dated 7.1.2016 Ex.P4 unserved cover Ex.P5 xerox copy of the pronote dated 5.8.2013 executed by the accused for Rs 1,00,000/-.

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

Id/-xxxxxx P.JC.J cum J.F.C.M. GUDUR 111

CC 340/16 in Old CC No 543/2016 Dt 11.07.2019

CRL.MP/24/2015 Convicted

Muppalla Murali Raju vs Bathina Bhaskar Reddy

02 Jul 2019

CC 24/15 in Old CC No 409/2014 Dt 2.07.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GUDUR

Present: Smt. K.Jayalakshmi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur.

Tuesday, this the Second (02nd ) day of July, 2019.

C.C.No.24 of 2015

Muppalla Murali Raju, S/o Jayaram Raju, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Private employee, residing at Gudur town,

S.P.S.R Nellore District..... Complainant.

Vs.

Bathina Bhaskar Reddy, S/o Pulla Reddy, Hindu, business, East Street, Gudur,

S.P.S.R District...... Accused.

This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri

K.V. Krishnaiah, Counsel for the complainant and Sri P. Prathap Kumar,

Counsel for the accused, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:-

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

This is the Private complaint filed against the accused for the offence U/s 138 r/w 142 of N.I Act.

2.The Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs 6,87,000/- ( rupees six lakhs eighty seven thousand only) from the complainant on 19.10.2013 and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. On the demand of complainant the accused had issued a cheque bearing No 896466 dated 30.01.2014 for

Rs 7,00,000/-( rupees seven lakhs) towards part payment of the pronote amount, drawn on State Bank of India, Gudur branch. On 28.4.2014 he presented a cheque before the State Bank of India, Gudur branch for collection, but on the same day the cheque was returned due to insufficient funds in the account of accused. Immediately on 28.5.2014 22

CC 24/15 in Old CC No 409/2014 Dt 2.07.2019

he got issued a registered legal notice to the accused and same was received by accused on 30.05.2014. The accused did not pay the amount covered under the above cheque, hence the complaint.

4.After appearance of accused, copies were supplied to him as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C., and thereafter he was examined U/s 251 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the offence U/s 138 of N.I Act, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the complainant himself examined as PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 . On behalf of defence side

DW1 and Dw2 examined and got marked Ex.D1 to D6 .

7.The accused examined Dw1 and 2 and got marked Ex.D1 to

D6.

8.I heard the arguments from the complainant side. On 26.6.2019 in spite of condition the accused failed to submit his arguments hence treated as heard.

9.The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the evidence of the PW1 coupled with the documents Ex.P1 to P5 clearly 33

CC 24/15 in Old CC No 409/2014 Dt 2.07.2019

and directly supporting the version of the complainant case, hence the accused can be convicted for the offence U/s 138 of N.I Act.

10.Now the following points arise for determination in this case:-

1. “Whether the accused has issued the cheque to the complainant for the discharge of the legally enforceable debt” ?

2. “ Whether the complainant has proved his case for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

11.For the reasons to be recorded hereafter, my finding is as under:

FINDING

Point No. 1 - -Yes -

Point No. 2- -Yes -

Final order:- The accused is convicted as per operative part of judgment.

Reasons in support of my finding

1. “Whether the accused has issued the cheque to the complainant for the discharge of the legally enforceable debt” ?

2. “ Whether the complainant has proved his case for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

12. POINT No. 1 “Whether the accused has issued the cheque to the complainant for the discharge of the legally enforceable debt” ?

13.The allegation raised by the accused is that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs 6,87,000/- ( six lakhs eighty seven thousand only) from him on 19.10.2013 for his necessities and executed a pronote agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a and when he demanded back the amount, the accused issued a cheque/Ex.P1 on 44

CC 24/15 in Old CC No 409/2014 Dt 2.07.2019

30.1.2014 for Rs 7,00,000/- ( rupees seven lakhs) towards the part payment of the pronote debt drawn on State Bank of India, Gudur branch and same was dishonoured due to the insufficient of fund in the account of accused. In support of its case, the complainant himself examined as PW1 and he reiterated same facts of his complaint in his affidavit of chief examination and PW2/Singapati Bhanu Prakash deposed in the same lines of PW1. However, they deposed that on 28.04.2014 the PW1 presented the cheque/Ex.P1 the State Bank of

India, Gudur branch for collection and on the same day the cheuqe was returned due to insufficiency of fund in the account of accused. PW1 deposed that he got issued a registered legal notice to the accused on 28.5.2014 and same was received by the accused on 30.5.2014. In the cross examination he clearly admitted that on 19.10.2013 he gave money of Rs 6,87,000/- to the accused and the accused executed pronote to him at that time one Mallikarjun was also present. In the view of evidence of PW1 and 2, the cheque Ex.P1 was issued by the accused in discharge of legal enforceable debt i.e., for the discharge of debt under pronote dated 19.10.2013.

14.On other hand the accused deposed that he never borrowed any amounts as alleged by the complainant and never issued the Ex.P1 to the complainant to discharge the alleged debt. He contended that the complainant purchased plot from accused under agreement of sale.

Later due to the rivalry of lorry owners association, the lorry owners association filed the suit against the accused as well as purchasers of the plots of the accused. The complainant, who is one of the plot purchaser insisted to return the sale consideration amount. The accused requested the complainant that he look after the civil litigation that was filed by the lorry owners association but the complainant without hearing accused insisted him to give blank signed pronote and 55

CC 24/15 in Old CC No 409/2014 Dt 2.07.2019

blank signed cheque. Later he repay the amount to the complainant and endorsed the same by him on the back of the agreement of sale papers with his own handwriting and the complainant issued a receipt with his signature. The complainant even after receiving the entire sale consideration and interest complainant again issued the legal notice.

He also put the suggestion to PW1 on his aspect, but same was denied by the PW1 in the view of contention raised by the accused. More over if really accused paid the amounts in the view of sale transaction he must have obtained the receipt or he must have ask the complainant to endorse the same on the back side of the pronote. Further the accused did not cross examined the PW1 with regarding to the return of the amounts in five installments to the complainant. Further it is evident that the accused issued the cheque. Of course it is true that the accused executed/issued cheque/Ex.P1 in the name of complainant.

Therefore, if once of execution of cheque and the issuance of cheque in question in the name of the complainant for the cheque by the accused, it is incumbent on the court to draw presumption U/s 139 of N.i Act unless contrary is proved, accordingly the complainant in this case is certainly entitle to avail benefit of presumption U/s 139 of N.I Act.

15.The main contention raised by the accused is that the accused issued a cheque/Ex.P1 to the complainant without filling the cheque and it was not issued for legal enforceable debt as alleged by the complainant hence the complainant has no right to avail presumption U/s 139 of N.I Act. However, their lordships have elaborately discussed about the entitlement of presumption U/s 139 of

N.I act and its applicability.

CC 24/15 in Old CC No 409/2014 Dt 2.07.2019

16.But particularly a citation of the Hon’ble High Court of

Kerala reported in 2007 Crl.J.3124(KER) held that: If the holder has to avail the benefit of presumption under Section 139 of NI Act, the burden is on him to establish the following three requisites

1. that a person whose favour the presumption is wrong is the holder of the cheuqe;

2. that the cheuqe is of the nature stated in Section 139 of the Act;

3. that such cheque is received by the holder.

17. Now in the present case in hand, the evidence of PW1 and 2 coupled with documents of Ex. P1 to P5 clearly reveal that the accused issued the Ex.P1 to the complainant for Rs 7,00,000/- ( seven lakhs) towards part satisfaction of debt under pronote dated 19.10.2013 therefore PW1 is receiver and holder of the cheque which is of nature stated in Sec 138 of N.I Act. Under these circumstances it can be said that the aforesaid three requisites for drawing the presumption U/s 139 of N.I act are satisfied.

18.No doubt, the presumption U/s 138 of N.I Act is rebuttable presumption, and if the accused by the preponderance of evidence has discharged the burden contemplated U/s 138 of N.I act, the burden would shifts to the complainant to prove all the ingredience of Sec 138 of N.I act beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case in hand the main contention raised by the accused is that he issued the blank cheque to complainant when the complainant insisted him to return the sale consideration amount that was executed sale agreement dated 19.05.2011 when accused assured the complainant that he will look after the civil suit filed by the lorry owners association against him and the complainant with regarding to the disputed plots, still the 77

CC 24/15 in Old CC No 409/2014 Dt 2.07.2019

complainant insisted hence the accused signed blank cheque and pronote. But in support of his version he got marked the Ex.D5. The

Ex.D5 is in the form of slip with contents on the top of the slip 10.3.2014, and in the body of the slip the contents goes to speaks “ received cash 1/2/2014- 1,50,000, 10/3/2014-1,00,000 with signature.

Except marking Ex.D5 the accused did not questioned about the Ex.D5 while cross examined the PW1. Further there is no supporting evidence to prove that Ex.B5 was issued by the complainant and Ex.D5 is the receipt issued by the complainant in the view of monitory transaction under Ex. P1. Further the accused also failed to prove that the amounts in the Ex.D5 was returned to the complainant in the view of sale consideration. Though the accused examined the Dw2 to support his version but in the cross examination Dw2 admitted that he did not know the dates that was given by the accused to the complainant in connection to the sale agreement. Though the Dw1 and 2 speak on the same lines that accused issued the blank cheque and blank pronote in the connection of sale agreement executed by the accused on 19.5.2011 but there is no proof and evidence to believe that the Ex.P1 was issued in the circumstances alleged by the accused. Though he failed to adduce the evidence on his behalf, the accused had an opportunity to elicit the facts for the proof of his case from the cross examination of PW1. But in this case though the Pw1 is cross examined elaborately but nothing is elicited contrary to the case of complainant.

All this facts reveal that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption

U/s 139 of N.I Act by preponderance of evidence.

19.For the reasons discussed that, it can safely concluded the accused had issued Ex.P1 to the complainant for the discharge of legal enforceable debt. Accordingly Point 1 is answered in favour of complainant and against the accused.

CC 24/15 in Old CC No 409/2014 Dt 2.07.2019

20.Point No 2 “ Whether the complainant has proved his case for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

Since it is clearly prove that the accused had issue cheuqe/Ex.P1 to the complainant for the discharge of legal enforceable debt the court has to see whether the complainant has followed the procedure lay down U/s 138 and 142 of Act as per PW1 he presented the cheque on 28.4.2014 in the S.B.I, Gudur branch for collection and on the same day the cheque was returned under Ex.P2 due to the insufficiency of fund in the account of the drawer, then he got issued legal notice to the accused on 28.4.2014 under Ex.P3 and P4, and same was served on accused dated 30.05.2014 then he filed the complaint with in statutory period. The contention of the accused is that he gave a blank cheque and blank pronote without mentioning the date. It is an established principle that even if a blank cheque has been given towards liability, if the cheque is filled up and presented to the bank, the person who had draw the cheque can not avoid criminal liability arising out of Sec 138 of

N.I Act. Therefore the contention raised by the accused can not be viewed seriously.

21. In the view of all this facts and circumstances it can safely concluded that the complainant successfully proved guilty of the accused for the offence U/s 138 of N.I Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

CC 24/15 in Old CC No 409/2014 Dt 2.07.2019

22.In the result the accused is found guilty for the offence U/s 138 of N.I Act and accordingly he is convicted U/s 255(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offence.

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist directly on system corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 02 nd day of July, 2019.

Sd/-K.Jayalakshmi

PRL . JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -

CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GUDUR.

23.On questioning about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against the accused U/s 138 of N.I Act, he stated that he was recently attacked to paralysis and partially paralyzed . I am only the person bread winner to the family my old age parents are depended on me. This court is not in favour of exercising any power U/s 360 of Cr.P.C and probation of offenders Act, since this case is related to dishonor of cheques which is involved an amount of Rs “7” lakhs/- ( rupees seven lakhs).

24.In the result the accused is sentenced to under go Simple

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist directly on system corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 02 nd day of July, 2019. Sd/-K.Jayalakshmi

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GUDUR.

101

CC 24/15 in Old CC No 409/2014 Dt 2.07.2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION :

P.W.1 : Muppala Murali Raju P.W.2 : Singapati Bhanu Prakash

FOR DEFENCE :

DW.1 : B. Bhaskar Reddy DW.2 : Mahindra Kumar

EXHIBI TS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 The cheque bearing No 896466 Ex.P2 Bank return memo Ex.P3 The office copy of legal notice dated 28.5.2014 Ex.P4 The postal acknowledgment Ex.P5 The original promissory note dated 19.10.2013

FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.D1 Signature and handwriting Ex.D2 certified copy of neat copy of plaint filed in the court of Prl.

District Judge, Nellore.

Ex.D3 is the certified copy of written statement filed by the 7th defendant in Os No 248/2011. Ex.D4 is the legal notice issued by the Advocate K. Venkata Krishnaiah dated 26.9.2015 Ex.D5 is the receipt issued by the Muppala Muraliraju after receiving the amount Rs 1,50,000/- on 1.2.2014 and Rs 1,00,000/- on 10.3.2014 Ex.D6 is the certified copy of the plaint in OS No 183/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge court. Gudur.

Id/-xxxxxx P.JC.J cum J.F.C.M. GUDUR 111

CC 24/15 in Old CC No 409/2014 Dt 2.07.2019

CC/100005/2016 Convicted

M/s Shriram City Unior Finance Ltd., Gudur Branch, Rep/ by B. Srinivasa Rao vs Vakati Sridhar Reddy

21 Jun 2019

CC 5/16 in Old CC No 283/2015 Dt 21.6.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GUDUR

PRESENT: SRI K. JAYALAKSHMI, Prl. Junior Civil Judge Cum

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GUDUR.

Dated, this the 21st day of June, 2019

CALENDAR CASE No. 5/2016

Old Calendar Case No 283 /2015

Between:

M/S Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Gudur Branch, Rep.by its Authorized,

Signatory B. Sreenivasa Rao....Complainant

A N D

Vakati Sridhar Reddy, S/o Janakirami Reddy, Hindu, aged about 45 years, business and residing at Nalajalamma Street, Gudur town and Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District....Accused

This suit coming up for hearing in the presence of Sri. Y. Aravind, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri P. Venkata Subbaiah, advocate for the Accused and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

This is the Private complaint filed against the accused for the offence U/s 138, 142 of N.I Act.

2.The Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

The accused availed trade finance of an amount of Rs 5,00,000/- from the complainant company i.e., under the name and style M/s Sriram City Union Finance Ltd on 29.6.2012 by executing the loan agreement bearing No GUDRBTF1206290007. Agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest @ 20% p.a in 36 monthly installments at the rate of Rs 22,222 per month. As per the terms of the company the accused issued post dated cheques each for Rs 22,222/- in favour of 22

CC 5/16 in Old CC No 283/2015 Dt 21.6.2019

complainant company towards monthly installments. The accused became defaulter in paying the monthly installments the complainant company filed an Arbitration case No 213/2014 on 28.02.2014 for a sum of Rs 6,11,136/-. Knowing the fact the accused approached the Gudur branch office of complainant’s company and issued a cheque for Rs 6,46,000/- in favour of the complainant company bearing cheque No 583224 dated 18.06.2014 drawn on State Bank of India, Gudur branch.

The complainant company submitted the cheque for collection in its bank at City Union Bank, Gudur on 24.07.2014, the cheque was returned due to insufficient funds in the account of accused. On 18.08.2014 the complainant company got issued registered notice to accused, as the postal cover of acknowledgment was not returned the complainant company obtained on line track report on 23.08.2014 showing that the notice was deliver to accused. Even after receiving notice the accused did not pay the amount covered under the above cheque, hence the complaint.

3.On perusal of the material available on record including the sworn statement of the complainant, this case was taken into cognizance by this court for the offence U/s 138 and 142 of N.I act against the accused.

5.During the course of trial, the complainant himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6.

6. After closure of complainant evidence the accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C ., and I explained the incriminating evidence 33

CC 5/16 in Old CC No 283/2015 Dt 21.6.2019

appeared against him in Telugu, for which the accused denied the evidence of prosecution and reported defence witness on his behalf.

7.I heard the arguments from both the sides. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the evidence of the PW1 coupled with the documents Ex.P1 to P6 clearly and directly supporting the version of the complainant case, hence the accused can be convicted for the offence U/s 138 of N.I Act. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused, argued that the cheque was not issued to the complainant for the discharge of legal enforceable debt and the complaint is barred by limitation, hence the accused is not liable for the offence U/s 138 of N.I Act.

8.Now the following points arise for determination in this case:-

1. “Whether the accused has issued the cheque to the complainant for the discharge of the legally enforceable debt” ?

2. “ Whether the complainant has proved his case for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

9.For the reasons to be recorded hereafter, my finding is as under:

FINDING

Point No. 1 -- Yes -

Point No. 2- - Yes-

Final order:- The accused is convicted as per operative part of judgment.

Reasons in support of my finding

1. “Whether the accused has issued the cheque to the complainant for the discharge of the legally enforceable debt” ?

2. “ Whether the complainant has proved his case for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

CC 5/16 in Old CC No 283/2015 Dt 21.6.2019

10. POINT No. 1 “Whether the accused has issued the cheque to the complainant for the discharge of the legally enforceable debt” ?

11.The allegation raised by the complainant company is that the accused obtained trading finance of Rs 5,00,000/- on 29.06.2012 by executing the loan agreement bearing No GUDRBTF1206290007 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 20% p.a in 36 monthly installments at the rate of Rs 22,222/- per month. The accused became defaulter in paying monthly installments and the complainant company filed the Arbitration case No 213/2014 on 28.02.2014 for a sum of Rs 6,11,136/- . Knowing about the award passed in 2013/2014. The accused approached the complainant company and issued the cheque/Ex.P1 drawn in State Bank of India, Gudur branch for collection the cheque was submitted in the Company’s bank at City Union Bank on 24.07.2014 the cheque was returned due to insufficiency of fund in the account of accused. Then the company got issued a legal notice to accused on 18.06.2014 same was deliver to the accused. In the cross examination the PW1 representative of the complainant company clearly admitted that on 29.06.2012 the complainant company sanctioned a trade finance of Rs 5,00,000/- in favour of accused and the accused executed a loan agreement and the accused became the defaulter . The company file arbitration case No 213/2014 on 28.02.2014 knowing about the award passed by the arbitrator. The accused approached the company and issued the Ex.P1. In the view of the evidence of the PW1, the cheque/Ex.P1 was issued by the accused in discharge of legal enforceable debt i.e., for the discharge of the debt under loan agreement bearing No GUDRBTF1206290007.

CC 5/16 in Old CC No 283/2015 Dt 21.6.2019

12.The contention raised by the counsel for accused that the cheque/Ex.P1 was not filled by the accused hence the complainant has no right to avail presumption U/s 138 of N.I Act. However their lordships have elaborately discussed about the entitlement of presumption U/s 139 of N.I Act and its applicability. Particularly the Hon’ble High

court of Kerala in citation reported in 2007 Crl.L.J3124(kerala),

held that if the holder has to avail of the benefit of the

presumption U/s 139 of the Act, the burden is on him to

establish the following three-requisites. (i)that the person in

whose favour the presumption is drawn is the holder of the

cheque(ii)that the cheque is of the nature stated in sec 138 of

the Act(iii) that said cheque is received by the holder. Now in the present case in hand, the evidence of PW1 coupled with documents of Ex. P1 to P6 clearly reveal that the accused issued the Ex.P1 to the complainant for Rs 6,46,000/- toward arbitration award. Therefore the complainant is receiver and holder of the cheque which is of nature stated in Sec 138 of the act under these circumstances it can be said that the aforesaid requisites for drawing the presumption U/s 138 N.I Act are satisfied.

13.No doubt, the presumption U/s 138 of N.I Act is rebuttable presumption, and if the accused by the preponderance of evidence has discharged the burden contemplated U/s 138 of N.I act, the burden would shifts to the complainant to prove all the ingredience of Sec 138 of N.I act beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case in hand the main contention raised by the accused is that the cheque/Ex.P1 was not issued by him to complainant for award amount passed by the arbitrator. In the present case in hand the main contention raised by the accused is that the post dated cheques that was issued by him was 66

CC 5/16 in Old CC No 283/2015 Dt 21.6.2019

filled by the complainant company and filed this case. But in support of his version no evidence adduced by the accused and no evidence is there to believe that the complainant company filled the one of the post dated cheque issued by the accused and filed this case. More over as per the evidence on record the complainant company issued the legal notice to the accused on 18.8.2014 showing that the notice was served to accused on 23.8.2014. If really the accused did not issued the cheque under Ex.P1 he must have give reply to the notice that was issued by the complainant company, or he might have ask the company to return the post dated cheques that was issued by him or he must have adduce the evidence the number of cheques that was issued by him to the company at the time of taking trade finance from the company and the number of cheques honoured. The accused neither gave details nor produced any proof on his behalf. Though he failed to adduced evidence on his behalf, the accused had an opportunity to elicit the fact for the proof of his case from the cross examination of PW1 but in the case there is no disturbance in the cross examination of PW1 and nothing is elicited contrary to the case of complainant. All this facts reveal that the accused has failed to rebutt the presumption U/s 139 of N.I Act by preponderance of evidence .

14.For the reasons discussed supra, it can be safely concluded that the accused had issued Ex.P1 to the complainant for discharge of legal enforceable debt . Accordingly the point No 1 is answered in favour of complainant against the accused.

15.POINT NO 2 “ Whether the complainant has proved his case for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

CC 5/16 in Old CC No 283/2015 Dt 21.6.2019

16.Since it is clearly proved that the accused had issued cheque./Ex.P1 to the complainant for the discharge of legal enforceable debt, the court has to see whether the complainant has followed the procedure lay down under section 138 and 142 of the Act. As per PW1, he presented the cheque on 24.07.2014 for collection and on 25.07.2014 the cheque was returned under Ex.P2 due to insufficiency of fund in the account of drawer, then he got legal notice on 18.08.2014 under Ex.P3, Ex.P4. And then the company filed the complaint through his representative within the statutory period. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the complainant company filled the post dated cheques, hence it is nothing but material alteration of the cheque/Ex.P1. Therefore the accused can not be punished for the office under section 138 of N.I Act. But in the cross examination of PW1 clearly deposed that Ex.P1 was filled and signed by the accused, further it is also clear that the accused is not disputing his signature on the cheque.

Under these circumstances, it can not be said that the accused issued blank cheque and it is materially altered. More over, it is an established principle that even if a blank cheque has been given towards liability, if the cheque is filled up and presented to the bank, the person who had draw the cheque can not avoid the criminal liability arising out of sec 138 of N.I Act. Therefore the contention raised by the leaned counsel for the accused can not be viewed seriously.

17.With a view of all this facts and circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the complainant successfully proved guilt of the accused for the offence U/s 138 of N.I act beyond all reasonable doubt.

CC 5/16 in Old CC No 283/2015 Dt 21.6.2019

18.In the result the accused is found guilty for the offence U/s 138 of N.I Act and accordingly he is convicted U/s 255(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offence.

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist directly on system corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21 st day of June, 2019.

Sd/-K. Jayalakshmi

PRL . JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -

CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GUDUR.

19.On questioning about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against the accused U/s 138 of N.I Act, he stated that he is the only bread winner to his family and he is having number of health ailments he is suffering with BP and saitica . This court is not in favour of exercising any power U/s 360 of Cr.P.C and probation of offenders Act, since this case is related to dishonour of cheque which is involved an amount of Rs “6,56,000” ( rupees six lakhs fifty six thousand only).

20.In the result the accused is sentenced to under go Simple

Imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs 1,000/- in default of payment of fine he should suffer Simple imprisonment for two months. The remand period if any shall be set off U/s 428 of Cr.P.C the accused is informed about his right of appeal against the sentence imposed by this court. The office is directed to supply copy of judgment immediately to the accused at free of cost.

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist directly on system corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21 st day of June, 2019.

Sd/-K. Jayalakshmi

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GUDUR.

CC 5/16 in Old CC No 283/2015 Dt 21.6.2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION :

P.W.1 : B.Sreenivasa Rao

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

EXHIBI TS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 the cheque bearing No 583224 for Rs 6,46,000/-. Ex.P2 the memo issued by the State Bank of India, Gudur dated 25.7.2014. Ex.P3 the office copy of legal notice dated 18.8.2014 Ex.P4 the postal receipt Ex.P5 the postal on line track report dated 23.8.2014 Ex.P6 the certified copy of authorization certificate

FOR DEFENCE : Nil Id/-xxxxxxxx P.J.C.J cum J.F.C.M. GUDUR 101

CC 5/16 in Old CC No 283/2015 Dt 21.6.2019

OS/128/2017

Tambi Allemma vs Kunchi Jayamma

16 Jul 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GUDUR.

Present: Smt K.Jayalakshmi

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur.

Dated, this the 16 th day of July,2019

O.S. No. 128/2017

Tambi Allemma, W/o late Seenaiah, aged about 46 years, house wife, Hindu and resident of B.C colony, Narasingarao pet, Gudur town and Mandal, S.P.S.R Nellore District.…. Plaintiff

Vs.

Kunchi Jayamma, W/o Penchalaiah, aged about 52 years, House wife, Hindu and resident of B.C colony, Narasingarao pet, Gudur town and mandal,

S.P.S.R Nellore District.….. Defendant

This suit is coming for final disposal before me, in the presence of Sri Y. Aravind, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri P. Gopal Reddy, advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration today itself, this court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is the suit filed for recovery of Rs 55,550 ( rupees fifty five thousand five hundred and fifty only)/ being the principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated 15.7.2017 executed by the defendant for Rs 55,000/ agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a and for costs of the suit

2. The brief averments of plaint are as follows :

On 15.7.2017 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs 55,000/ ( rupees fifty five thousand only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a., and executed a demanded promissory note 2 on the same day in favour of plaintiff. On 30.7.2017 she came to know that the defendant is going to sell away her only property to evade the payment of debt by knowing the same she ask the defendant to pay the debt but the defendant refused to pay the debt and asked her to complied any debt., hence the suit.

3.Written statement filed by the defendant denying most of the averments in the plaint and admitted that she is a maid servant working in the plaintiff house from four years. And she stopped working in the plaintiff house as plaintiff was not properly treated her and did not paid monthly wages properly. The plaintiff made all the efforts to bring back her as a maid servant but she refused therefore the plaintiff fabricated the suit promissory note and filed the suit with all false allegations. Further she is in the occupation of

Government site she has no right to alienate the house, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.On the strength of rival contentions, the following issues are framed for trial and final determination.

1) “ Whether the suit pronote is rank forged one”?

2) “Whether the plaintiff is entitle for suit amount as prayed for”?

3) “To what relief”?

5.During the course of trial the plaintiff examined Pw 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A1. The defendant examined Dw.1 and no documents were marked on her behalf.

Heard the counsel for plaintiff and defendant my finding is as under

FINDING

Issue No 1 : No

Issue No 2 : Yes issue No 3 : Suit is decreed as per operative part of judgment.

Reasons in support of my Finding

1) “ Whether the suit pronote is rank forged one”?

2) “Whether the plaintiff is entitle for suit amount as prayed for”?

3) “To what relief”?

6. Issue No 1

As per the plaintiff the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs 55,000/ ( rupees fifty five thousand only) from her , and executed demanded promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff. On 30.7.2017 she came to know that the defendant is going to sell away her only property to evade the payment of debt by knowing the same she went and demands but the defendant is failed to discharge the amount.

7.Per contra the defendant worked as maid servant in the plaintiff house for four years and the plaintiff did not treated her properly therefore she stopped to work in the plaintiff house. But the plaintiff made an efforts to bring back her as a maid servant to her house when she refused she filed a suit by creating the pronote.

8.The general principle in a suit filed on a foot of pronote is, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove execution of the suit pronote by the defendant. Now the present case in hand, since the defendant is contending that the pronote is forged and fabricated one, the burden lies on her to prove the same. In support of her case she testified herself as a DW1 and deposed in her evidence that she was a maid servant in the plaintiff house and she stop working in the plaintiff house as plaintiff was treated her badly the plaintiff made all the efforts to take back her as a maid servant in her house but she refused.

Therefore the plaintiff fabricated the suit pronote. In the cross examination DW1 admitted that she did not know the contents of her chief affidavit she paid debt 4 to the plaintiff she did not took the promissory note from the plaintiff. There are no disputes between her and the plaintiff. And she admitted that the signature on the vakalath is not that of her. On one hand DW1 deposed in her chief examination that she never borrowed pronote amount and did not executed the pronote in favour of plaintiff and on other hand she clearly admitted in the cross examination that she has paid debt amount to the plaintiff and she did not took the promissory note from the plaintiff. All this inconsistancy lead to suspect the contention of the defendant.

9.In the view of all this facts it can be said that the defendant has failed to prove her pleadings. Though the defendant has failed discharge her burden, it is the case of the plaintiff to prove execution of the suit pronote by the defendant under sufficient consideration. During course of trial apart from testifying herself as PW1 the plaintiff examined the second attestor of Ex.A1 as

PW2. Both PW1 and 2 have deposed in their evidence that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs 55,000/ from the plaintiff on 15.7.2017 and executed a suit pronote/Ex.A1 agreeing the repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a in the cross examination PW1 denied the suggestion the defendant never borrowed an amount of Rs 55,000./ from her on 15.7.2017 and the suit pronote was forged and fabricated. Pw2 deposed in his cross examination that the defendant did not borrowed the Rs 55,000/ and no monitory transaction took place under Ex.A1. They deposed in the same voice that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs 55,000/ from PW1 under Ex.A1 and one Yenati

Sankaraiah scribed the suit pronote. The defendant elaborately cross examined

PW1 and 2, but nothing is elicited contrary to the case of plaintiff and there is no disturbance in their evidence.

10.For the reasons discussed supra it can be safely concluded that the defendant has failed to discharge her burden, but the plaintiff clearly proved execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant for Rs 55,000/ in the presence of attestors and scribe. Therefore the plaintiff is certainly entitle for the suit amount from the defendant accordingly, the issue No 1 and 2 answered in the favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

11.In view of my finding issue No 1 and 2, the plaintiff is certainly entitle the suit amount from the defendant.

12.In the result the suit is decreed with costs of Rs 55,550/ with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a on the principal amount of Rs 55,000/ from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist, pronounced by me in open court, this the 16 th day of July 2019.

Sd/ K. Jayalakshmi

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUDUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff : For defendant :

P.W.1 : Tambi AllemmaDW.1 : Kanchi Jayamma PW.2 : Sk. Babu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff : For Defendant :

Ex.A1 : Promissory note dated 15.7.2017

Id/xxxxx

PJCJ,GDR.

Order Record 104 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/128/2017	Tambi Allemma vs Kunchi Jayamma	16 Jul 2019	judgement	—
CC/100335/2016	Kodavaluru Prasad vs Penubali Ravi Kumar	11 Jul 2019	judgement	Convicted
CC/100340/2016	Kodavaluru Vasantha vs Penuballi Ravi Kumar	11 Jul 2019	judgement	Convicted
CRL.MP/24/2015	Muppalla Murali Raju vs Bathina Bhaskar Reddy	02 Jul 2019	judgement	Convicted
CC/100005/2016	M/s Shriram City Unior Finance Ltd., Gudur Branch, Rep/ by B. Srinivasa Rao vs Vakati Sridhar Reddy	21 Jun 2019	judgement	Convicted
OS/84/2018	V.Janardhan Reddy vs Avula Raguramaiah	20 Jun 2019	judgement	—
OS/236/2013	Kamisetty Prabhakar vs Shaik sameeulla alias Shammu	14 Jun 2019	judgement	—
CC/100077/2016	Yanamala Dasaradharami Reddy vs Marri Muralidhar Reddy	13 Jun 2019	judgement	—
CC/100370/2016	Mandi Prabhavathamma vs Marri Muralidhar Reddy	13 Jun 2019	judgement	—
OS/63/2018	Polam reddy Sudheer Kumar Reddy vs Chetteti Penchalaiah	04 Jun 2019	judgement	—
CC/100115/2016	Mandi Srinivasulu Reddy vs Rajaram Srinivasa Singh	27 May 2019	judgement	—
CC/100089/2017	Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandaleru P.s. vs Cheekatla Penchala Narasaiah	30 Apr 2019	judgement	—
CC/100412/2016	sho podalakur P.S vs Kolatam Murali Krishna	30 Apr 2019	judgement	—
OS/384/2005	Kandali Venugopalreddy vs Vsarugunta Subbareddy	20 Feb 2019	judgement	—
OS/254/2013	Mallela Nagalakshmi vs Makani Narasaiah	11 Feb 2019	judgement	—
OS/81/2018	Andhra pragathi Grameena Bank vs Chinnareddy Sasikumari	29 Jan 2019	judgement	—
OS/82/2018	Andhra pragathi Grameena Bank Rep by its Branch Manager Podalakur village podalakur mandal nellore vs Chinnareddy Madhusudhana Reddy	29 Jan 2019	judgement	—
OS/189/2017	Bandi Kumari vs Thuraka Thirupalu	29 Jan 2019	judgement	—
OS/80/2018	Palipi Bavani vs Karreti Mariyamma	23 Jan 2019	judgement	—
CC/100098/2017	State AP SHO Podalakur P.S vs Velumurugan Varalakshmi	12 Dec 2018	judgement	—
OS/81/2017	Mandi Prabhavathi vs Bathina Sankaraiah	31 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/94/2018	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Branch Manager, Dudi Vijaya Kumar vs Chinta Vijaya Reddy	31 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/140/2017	Kotapati Krishnaiah alias Krishtaiah vs Kotapati Ammanni	31 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/143/2017	Maddipati Suresh vs Paruchuri Venkata Krishnaiah	31 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/147/2017	Nalliboyina Prasad Rao vs Yalapalli Sreenivasulu	31 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/250/2012	Nagisetty Ramesh vs Nagisetti Vijaya Kumar	31 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/280/2011	Yaddala gopal and 2 otyhers vs Adala srinivasulureddy and 2 others	31 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/282/2008	Kolli Venkata Krishna Reddy vs Kolli Dilip Kumar Reddy	31 Oct 2018	judgement	—
CC/100135/2016	Ms Shriram City Union Finance limited, vs Kanagaluru Raja Sekhar	24 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/34/2013	Vankayalapati Mythili vs Nadella Ravindra Prasad	29 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/106/2013	Shaik Gouse Jan vs MS Sri Srinivasa Minerals	29 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/190/2012	Shaik Meera Mohaddin vs Shaik Sanjeetha	29 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/93/2012	Sarupuru Rangaiah vs Kanchani Chandra Sekhar Reddy	26 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/52/2012	Gundala RamaSubbaiah vs Yeragalla Rama Subbaiah	24 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/59/2013	Marri Rajendra Prasad vs Marri Madusudhana Rao	22 Sep 2018	judgement	—
CC/100075/2017	SHO Podalakur P.S. vs Kaithepalli Sanjeeva Kumar	20 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/32/2017	Muddeti Savithramma vs Yekollu alias Yekolla Narasamma	18 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/173/2017	Kadiyala Ramanamma vs Yekollu Suseelamma	18 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/186/2017	Kalluru Krishnamurthy vs Uppu Venkaiah	15 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/134/2017	Pachipala Janakamma vs Tupili Harikrishna	28 Aug 2018	judgement	—
OS/290/2012	Kammati Krishnaiah vs Kudumula Venkata Narayanaiah	25 Aug 2018	judgement	—
OS/227/2013	Udatha Krishnamma vs Udatha Dasaiah and three others	20 Aug 2018	judgement	—
OS/79/2012	Ramisetty Rekha Ramamurthy Naidu vs Veeriboina Gopala Krishna Yadav	17 Aug 2018	judgement	—
OS/295/2012	Udatha Venkatakrishnaiah vs Udatha Dasaradharamaiah	16 Aug 2018	judgement	—
OS/162/2010	Alamsetty Venkateswara Rao and one another vs Alamsetty Sugunamma	13 Aug 2018	judgement	—
OS/249/2008	Mudumukku Ramanaiah vs Talluru Peddaramanamma	13 Aug 2018	judgement	—
OS/95/2017	Avula Bhaskar vs Avula Jagadeesh	10 Aug 2018	judgement	—
OS/99/2017	Mudi Venkata Sesha Reddy vs Gogineni Sreenivasulu	10 Aug 2018	judgement	—
OS/190/2016	Jallella Santhamma vs Yekollu Suseelamma	10 Aug 2018	judgement	—
OS/30/2018	Chebrolu Vara Prasad Rao vs Valluru Surendar Kumar	08 Aug 2018	judgement	—
OS/88/2017	Kovi Sreenivasulu Naidu vs Daddolu Venkateswarlu	01 Aug 2018	judgement	—
OS/132/2017	Sangana Thirupal Reddy alias Sangam Thirupal Reddy vs Udatha Chinna Penchalaiah	31 Jul 2018	judgement	—
OS/194/2016	Jallella Venkata Subbaiah vs Yekollu Narasamma	31 Jul 2018	judgement	—
OS/196/2016	Shaik Khaleel Ahamed vs Penuballi Ravikumar	31 Jul 2018	judgement	—
CC/100081/2017	SHO Kandaleru vs Nimmala Rathnaiah	31 Jul 2018	judgement	—
CC/100403/2016	SHO.Podalakuru P.s vs Valipi Padmaiah	27 Jul 2018	judgement	—
CC/100110/2016	SHO, Kandaleru P.S vs Rajaboina Muralimohan	26 Jul 2018	judgement	—
CC/100287/2016	SHO Kandaleru P.S vs Korlagunta Sekhar	24 Jul 2018	judgement	—
CC/100286/2016	SHO, Kandaleru P.S vs Kalvakuri Ramaiah	04 Jul 2018	judgement	—
EP/87/2016	Talluru Narasimha Rao vs Vedicherla Sreenivasulu Reddy	20 Jun 2018	order	—
OS/162/2017	Battalapalli Ramaiah vs Putta Rama Rao	20 Jun 2018	judgement	—
CC/100413/2016	SHO , Podalakur PS vs Kosuru Penchalaiah	19 Jun 2018	judgement	—
CC/100091/2017	AP State SHO Podalakur P.S vs Mallika Raghuram	18 Jun 2018	judgement	—
CC/127/2017	SHO.Podalakuru P.s vs Borra Rajesh Kumar Reddy	12 Jun 2018	judgement	—
OS/33/2018	Rayapuneni Ravichandra vs Ullipayala VIjayalakshmi	04 Jun 2018	judgement	—
CC/100078/2017	State Sub Inspector of Police, Podalakur P.s. vs Pamuru Suresh	21 May 2018	judgement	—
OS/169/2017	D.Gurumurthy vs Mallem Srinivasulu	27 Mar 2018	judgement	—
OS/179/2017	Arikatla Bala Krishna vs Dakka Sreeramulu	27 Mar 2018	judgement	—
OS/14/2018	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Gudur Main Branch, Rep. by its Branch Manager. vs Rayapaneni Raja	24 Mar 2018	judgement	—
OS/33/2017	Shaik Alla Basha vs Shaik Kareemunnisa	24 Mar 2018	judgement	—
OS/154/2017	Ravu Pawan Kumar vs Moogara Murugesh alias Mukaram Murugesh	24 Mar 2018	judgement	—
OS/167/2017	Modiboina Siddaiah vs Golla Sivaramaiah	24 Mar 2018	judgement	—
CC/100214/2016	Sub Inspector of Police, Podalakur Police Stat vs Renangi Ratnam	24 Mar 2018	judgement	—
OS/159/2016	Gyara Eswaraiah vs Paluru Rangamma	20 Mar 2018	judgement	—
OS/198/2017	Konduru Kanthi Raju vs Konduru Sankara Raju	20 Mar 2018	judgement	—
OS/136/2017	Kanupuru Pardhaiah vs Eduru Chenchuramaiah	19 Mar 2018	judgement	—
OS/174/2017	Biradavolu Bhaskar Reddy vs Gorthala Rama Rao	19 Mar 2018	judgement	—
CC/100246/2016	SHO,podalakuru P.S vs Kunku Suresh	19 Mar 2018	judgement	—
CC/100415/2016	SHO.Podalakuru P.s vs Gangavarapu Gopal Reddy	19 Mar 2018	judgement	—
CC/100221/2016	SHO,podalakuru P.S vs Gadhi Yesupadham	17 Mar 2018	judgement	—
CC/100239/2016	SHO,podalakuru P.S vs Ganganaboina Sankaraiah	17 Mar 2018	judgement	—
OS/178/2016	Shaik Ashrafunnisa alias Ashrafunni vs Shaik Beebi	29 Jan 2018	judgement	—
OS/179/2016	Shaik Abdul Ravoof vs Shaik Beei	29 Jan 2018	judgement	—
CC/100330/2016	SHO,Podalakuru P.S vs Yadala Naga mallikarjuna Rao alias Mallaiah	29 Jan 2018	judgement	—
OS/87/2017	Kovi Sreenivasulu Naidu vs Turaka Guravaiah	25 Jan 2018	judgement	—
CC/100086/2016	SHO,podalakuru P.S vs Puvadi Giri Srinivasulu	24 Jan 2018	judgement	—
OS/3/2017	Mandi Srinivasulu Reddy vs Thirupathi Rosaiah	23 Jan 2018	judgement	—
OS/26/2017	Uggumudi Chandra Reddy vs Cheekati Sudhakar	23 Jan 2018	judgement	—
CC/100260/2016	Sub-Inspector of Police, Podalakur P.S. vs Ranganadham Kiran	23 Jan 2018	judgement	—
CC/100292/2016	Sub Inspector of Police PodalakuruP.S. vs Viruvuru Rathnaiah	23 Jan 2018	judgement	—
CC/100083/2016	SHO,podalakuru P.S vs Pasam Balakrishna	22 Jan 2018	judgement	—
CC/100081/2016	SHO,podalakuru P.S vs Kosana Kiran Kumar Reddy	30 Dec 2017	judgement	—
OS/110/2011	Posina Ramaiah vs Ravula Ravindra and four others	29 Dec 2017	judgement	—
OS/135/2010	Posina Chinnabbaiah vs Ravula Ankaiah Gowd - Died	29 Dec 2017	judgement	—
OS/153/2010	Dampuru Venkata Surendra Reddy vs Gummadi Srinivasulu and one another	29 Dec 2017	judgement	—
CC/100099/2016	SHO,Kandaleru P.S vs Kunku Venkateswarlu	29 Dec 2017	judgement	—
CC/100183/2016	Sub Inspector of Police ,Podalakur P.S. vs Kongi chinnaiah	29 Dec 2017	judgement	—
CC/100323/2016	SHO,Podalakuru P.S vs Veeram Reddy Penchala Krishna	29 Dec 2017	judgement	—
OS/18/2017	Nagaripati Malleswari vs Molathati Raghuramaiah	21 Dec 2017	judgement	—
OS/27/2017	griddati Mallikarjuna Reddy vs Navuru Charles	21 Dec 2017	judgement	—

Showing 100 of 104 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jul 2019		4
Jun 2019		7
May 2019		1
Apr 2019		2
Feb 2019		2
Jan 2019		4
Dec 2018		1
Oct 2018		9
Sep 2018		12
Aug 2018		13
Jul 2018		8
Jun 2018		6

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi handled?

Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi has handled 108 court orders since 2017 at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 5 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi hear?

Based on available records, Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, CRL) at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka).

Where is Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi currently posted?

Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi is posted as JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VENKATAGIRI at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka), Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi dispose cases?

Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi disposes approximately 5 cases per month, based on 108 orders handled over their tenure at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka).

Since when is Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi serving?

Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi has been serving at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka) since 2017.

Case Types

OS 64%

CC 34%

CRL 1%

EP 1%

Posting History

Oct 2018 — May 2019

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VENKATAGIRI
May 2017 — Jul 2019

Prl.Junior Civil Judge · 108 orders

Outcomes on Record

Convicted 4

Other Judges at this Court

S Vishnu Varma

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VENKATAGIRI

294 orders

← View all judges at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka)

Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi

C.C.No. 335 of 2016

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

FINDING

Reasons in support of my finding

MADRAS HIGH COURT

MS. THIRUMALA WASS DECORS-RESPONDENT

(2016) 2 LAR 509

PRL . JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -

CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GUDUR.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

EXHIBI TS MARKED

C.C.No. 340 of 2016

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

FINDING

Reasons in support of my finding

K. Dhanabakkiyam

(2016) 2 LAR 509

PRL . JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -

CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

EXHIBI TS MARKED

C.C.No.24 of 2015

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

FINDING

Reasons in support of my finding

PRL . JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -

CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GUDUR.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

EXHIBI TS MARKED

PRESENT: SRI K. JAYALAKSHMI, Prl. Junior Civil Judge Cum

CALENDAR CASE No. 5/2016

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

FINDING

Reasons in support of my finding

court of Kerala in citation reported in 2007 Crl.L.J3124(kerala),

held that if the holder has to avail of the benefit of the

presumption U/s 139 of the Act, the burden is on him to

establish the following three-requisites. (i)that the person in

whose favour the presumption is drawn is the holder of the

cheque(ii)that the cheque is of the nature stated in sec 138 of

PRL . JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -

CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

EXHIBI TS MARKED

Present: Smt K.Jayalakshmi

Dated, this the 16 th day of July,2019

J U D G M E N T

FINDING

Reasons in support of my Finding

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff :­ For Defendant :­

PJCJ,GDR.

For plaintiff : For Defendant :