CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 1 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-CUM-
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION): TIRUVURU.
Present: Smt.O.Anusha,
I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum- Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nuzvid FAC::Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum- Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Tiruvuru.
Tuesday, the 17 th day of February, 2026.
C.C.No.46 of 2018
Between Maddireddi Bhaskara Reddy, S/o.Nagi Reddy, Hindu, aged 65 years, Agriculture, R/o.Putrela, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District
... Complainant.
And
Kunnerla Reddayya, S/o.Subba Rao, Hindu, aged 41 years, Business, R/o.Flat No.102, MIG 57, Lakshmi Subrahmanya ARKE, Way-1, KPHB Colony, Kukatpalli, JNTU, Kukatpalli Hyderabad, Telangana State
... Accused.
This case is coming on 27.01.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Complainant and of Sri Ch.Venkata Reddy, Advocate for Accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a private complaint filed by the Complainant against the Accused for the offence punishable under Secs.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The facts leading to the presentation of the complaint is that:
The accused is a close friend of the complainant’s son-in-law, Bommareddi
Siva Kumar Reddy. Due to this acquaintance, the accused requested the complainant to arrange a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- for business purposes. The complainant agreed and paid the said amount on 24.05.2015 at Kothuru Village,
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 2 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
Sathupalli Mandal, the native place of his son-in-law. After receiving the amount, the accused executed a promissory note in favor of the complainant, agreeing to repay the loan with interest at 24% per annum on demand. A xerox copy of the promissory note was filed by the complainant. Despite several oral demands, the accused failed to repay the loan. The complainant later learned that the accused had borrowed money from various persons, was attempting to dispose of his properties, and was planning to shift his residence from Hyderabad. On 15.11.2017, the complainant, along with his son-in-law, approached the accused and demanded repayment. On that day, through the mediation of the son-in-law, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 929022 drawn on State Bank of India, Kukatpalli
Branch, in favor of the complainant towards part payment of the debt, requesting that it be presented on 30.11.2017. The complainant presented the cheque through his account at State Bank of India, Putrela Branch on 30.11.2017. However, the cheque was returned on the same day with a memo stating “funds insufficient.”
Thereafter, the complainant issued a registered legal notice dated 20.12.2017 within the prescribed period, demanding payment of the cheque amount within fifteen days of receipt. The accused received the notice on 27.12.2017 and sent a reply on 12.01.2018 through his counsel with false and untenable allegations.
Hence, the present complaint was filed.
3.This case was taken on file under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against accused.
4.On appearance of accused, he was supplied with the copies of the case documents as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and examined under 251 Cr.P.C.
and substance of the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, read over and explained to accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 3 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
5.In order to substantiate the case of complainant, the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Ex.P1 is the Certified copy of promissory note dt.24.05.2015 executed by the accused in favour of complainant for Rs.6,000/-. Ex.P2 is the cheque for Rs.9,00,000/- bearing No.929022, dt.15.11.2017 of SBI, Kukatpalli branch. Ex.P3 is the Return memo of SBI, Putrela branch dt.30.11.2017. Ex.P4 is the office copy of registered notice dt.20.12.2017.
Ex.P5 is postal receipt dt.20.12.2017. Ex.P6 is the deposit slip dt.30.11.2017 of SBI,
Putrela Branch. Ex.P7 is the reply notice dt.12.01.2018.
6.After closure of complainant’s evidence, accused was examined under Sec.
313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material in the evidence of complainant and documents relied by the complainant is put-forth to accused, for which he stated that the evidence is false and reported de-fence evidence. The accused was examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.R1 is undertaking letter dt.02.02.2016 (marked subject to objection with regard to strict proof and relevance). Ex.R2 are the CC of third party affidavits belongs to B.Naresh Kumar and Bommareddy Shiva
Kumar.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the accused and perused the material available on record.
8. Now, the points that arose for determination is: -
(1) Whether the complainant has complied all the mandatory
requirements as envisaged U/sec. 138 of NI Act?
(2) Whether the accused is liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, due
under promissory note dt.24.05.2015? If so, Whether the accused had issued impugned cheque bearing No.929022 in favour of the complainant towards discharge of the said legally enforceable debt?
(3) Whether the complainant is successful in bringing home the guilt of
the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act beyond all reasonable doubt?
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 4 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
Since all the points for consideration are unit with each other they are discussed together for convenience and to avoid repetition.
9.The complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable u/s.138 NI Act. The initial burden lies on the complainant to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the complainant shall prove the following essentials:
a)Whether the cheque issued by the accused is presented for collection within period of its legal validity?
b)Whether the cheque was dis-honoured by the bank authorities for one of the reason which attracted the offence under section 138 NI Act within statutory period?
c)Whether the drawee issued notice u/s.138 NI act within statutory period?
d)Whether the drawer received notice but failed to make any payment covered by the dis-honoured cheque within stipulated time as per law?
e) Whether the complaint was filed within the period of limitation?
f)Whether the complainant prima-facie proved that the cheuqe was issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt?
If the complainant is able to prove all the above mentioned essentials or in other words, if all the above points are answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused. The presumption u/s.139 of NI Act comes into play and the burden of proof shifts on the accused and he has to rebut the presumption u/s.139 NI Act.
a) Whether the cheque issued by the accused is presented for collection within period of its legal validity?
The cheque in question bearing No.929022 of State Bank of
India, Kukatpalli Branch issued by the Accused for an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- on 15.11.2017 was presented by him for collection through banker in his savings bank
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 5 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
i.e., State Bank of India, Putrela Branch on 30.11.2017 and the branch Manager of
SBI, Putrela Branch confirmed on the same day that the cheque was received and processed by their bank and the cheque was returned with an endorsement “Funds in Sufficient” and a return memo dt.30.11.2017 was issued by the said
Branch Manager and the same is marked as Ex.P-3. There is no evidence on record disputing the date of presentation of cheque as stated by P.W.1 since the cheque dt.15.11.2017 was presented for collection on 30.11.2017 i.e., within statutory period of three months from the date of issuance as per section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act and it can be concluded that the cheque was presented within the period of its validity.
b) Whether the cheque was dis-honoured by the bank
authorities for one of the reason which attracted the offence under section
138 NI Act within statutory period?
P.W.1 deposed that the accused was issued a cheque bearing
No.929022 dt.15.11.2017 which he presented for collection through State Bank of
India, Putrela Branch and the same was returned by the drawee bank with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient’’ and the said memo is also produced before this
Court into evidence. The dishnonour of cheque due to funds insufficient, fits squarely within the scope of 138 of NI Act 1881 which penalizes the issuance of cheque that are returned unpaid on account of insufficient of funds or if its exceeds the amount arranged to be paid by the drawer. In the present case the cheque dt.15.11.2017 was dishnonoured on 30.11.2017 and the reason for dishonour was “funds insufficient”. Hence it is evident that the cheque was dishonoured for a reason that attracts the offence u/s.138 of NI Act and within the statutory period.
c) Whether the complainant/drawee issued notice u/s.138 NI act within statutory period?
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 6 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
P.W.1 the complainant deposed that upon receiving information from his banker about the dishonour of cheque due to funds insufficient, he issued legal notice dt.20.12.2017 to the accused reporting the dishonour of cheque on 15.11.2017 and the said legal notice is marked as Ex.P-4 and the same was dispatched on 20.12.2017 and the Postal receipt is marked as Ex.P-5 and the same was received by the accused on 27.12.2017. As per the proviso-II Section 138 (B)
Of NI Act the Payee or Holder in due course must issue a notice in writing within 30 days of receiving information from the bank regarding the return of cheque unpaid.
In the present case, if the dishonour information was received on 30.11.2017 and notice was issued on 20.12.2017.
d) Whether the Accused/drawer received notice but failed to
make any payment covered by the dishonoured cheque within stipulated time
as per law?
P.W.1 deposed that legal notice regarding payment of dishonour cheque amount was issued on 20.12.2017 and dispatched on the same date through his Advocate and the said notice i.e,. Ex.P-4 was received by the accused on 27.12.2017. However section 27 of General Clauses Act provides that whenever a notice has been dispatched to the receiver by furnishing the correct address particulars it is deemed that the same was received by the receiver, unless otherwise proved by the receiving party. Considering the above provision it is deemed that the accused received the notice on the day as stated by the drawee and after receipt of such notice the accused neither paid the amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice nor offered any settlement denying the liability. As per the provisions to Section 138 (C) of NI Act, the drawer of the cheque must make the payment of cheuqe amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice of dishonour of cheque. In this case although the accused deemed to receive legal notice on 27.12.2017 no payment was made within the stipulated period of 15 days thereafter. Hence it is clear that the drawer received the statutory
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 7 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
notice and failed to make any payment covered by the dishonour cheque within the time prescribed under law. it is clear that the statutory notice was issued well within the prescribed period of 30 days therefore, it can be concluded that the drawer/complainant issued notice u/s.138 of NI act within the statutory period.
e) Whether the complaint was filed within the period of limitation?
P.W.1 deposed that the cheque bearing No.929022 dt.15.11.2017 was dishonoured on the same day and a legal notice demanding payment was issued on 20.12.2017 and the same was received by the accused on 27.12.2017, but the accused failed to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice i.e., 27.12.2017. As per section 142 (B) of NI Act, the complaint must be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arises. In this case the cause of action arose on 12.01.2018 i.e., the day immediately following the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and the present complaint was filed on 06.02.2018 i.e., within the statutory period of one month.
Accordingly the complaint is filed within the period of limitation and this court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present offence.
f) Whether the complainant prima-facie proved that the cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt?
The complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and he categorically deposed that the accused borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from him on 24.05.2015 for his business purpose and that Accused and his son-in-law came to his native place i.e., Kothuru Village, Sathupali mandal by executing a Promissory
Note and the accused finally issued cheque bearing No.929022 to be drawn on
State Bank of India, Kukatpalli Branch dated: 30.11.2017 for Rs.9,00,000/- towards part satisfaction of debt due and requested him that to be present the said cheque into the bank on 30.11.2017 and the same was returned with a memo, dated:
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 8 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
30.11.2017 stating that funds insufficient in the account of accused and thereby the complainant issued a statutory notice on 20.12.2017 and the same was served on 27.12.2017. To prove the above said aspects, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and also marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 i.e., Ex.P1 is the certified copy of Promissory Note, dated: 24.05.2015 executed by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.6,00,000/-. Ex.P2 is the cheque for Rs.9,00,000/- bearing
No.929022, dt.15.11.2017 of SBI, Kukatpalli Branch. Ex.P3 is the Return Memo of
SBI, Putrela Branch, dt.30.11.2017. Ex.P4 is the Office copy of Registered Notice dt.20.12.2017. Ex.P5 is the Postal receipt dt.20.12.2017. Ex.P6 is the Deposit slip dt.30.11.2017 of SBI, Putrela Branch. Ex.P7 is the Reply notice dt.12.01.2018. On perusal of Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 appears that, the said documents are supporting the case of the complainant in respect of all material aspects and further appeared that, there is a debt due by the accused as per the Ex.P1 i.e., Promissory Note and the
Ex.P2 was issued towards the discharge of the debt due under Ex.P1 Promissory
Note and later, the complainant approached this court of law after giving proper statutory notice. Though, the P.W.1 was cross-examined at length but nothing is elicited in favour of accused.
10.Basing upon the cross-examination of P.W.1, the defence of the accused as elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.1, is that there is no legally enforceable debt between him and P.W.1 and that the present case is false and at the instance of P.W.1’s younger son-in-law due to prior business disputes with the accused. He further contended that in connection with earlier joint business dealings, blank signed cheques and promissory notes of the accused came into the possession of the said son-in-law and the same are being misused to file multiple false cases through P.W.1 and others to harass and extort money from the accused. P.W.1 has no personal knowledge of the alleged transaction and is only a proxy litigant and that his financial capacity to lend the alleged amount is doubtful, thereby rendering the claim and supporting documents unreliable and fabricated.
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 9 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
11. To prove the same, the accused himself was examined as D.W.1. In his chief examination he deposed that P.W.1 is stranger to him and he came to know his name and other particulars after receipt of the case copies through court. He stated that he made an enquiry in which he came to know that P.W.1 is father-in- law of his customer and by name one Shiva Kumar who also worked under him for some time. He stated that he did not receive any amount from P.W.1 under Ex.P-1.
He stated that he never executed any pronote and also not issued any cheque in favour of P.W.1. He further stated that there are financial transactions in between himself and the above said Shiva Kumar and he has taken amount from him in the said transactions, the said Shiva Kumar has obtained three blank signed pronotes, three blank singed cheques, three blank singed non judicial stamp paper and also obtained his signatures on empty conquest papers. He stated that he as two transactions with the said Shiva Kumar and in each transaction he has obtained three blank signed pronotes, three blank signed chques, three blank signed non judicial stamp papers. He stated that on 02.02.2016 he has discharged the entire debt due to the Shiva Kumar and said Shiva Kumar handed over only one pronote and one cheque and remaining have been misplaced for which he did not accept and thereby the said Shiva Kumar executed an undertaking upon a non-judical stamp paper worth of Rs.10/- with contents that he has not having any blank signed pronotes, cheques etc., belongs to him and even in case the said empty signed cheques, pronotes etc., are found they will not be used by himself or by any relative in any manner and the said undertaking was executed in the presence of one K.Uday Bhaskar (his brother), B.Naresh Kumar and they both have signed as witnesses of the said document. He stated that P.W.1 filed a Civil suit basing on a pronote (Ex.P-1) on the file of Sathupalli Court for recovery of money and also filed an IA for attachment of property supported by two third party affidavits i.e., belongs to Bommareddy Shiva Kumar, B.Naresh Kumar and he has obtained the certified copies of the said affidavits. He stated that he never borrowed any amount from
P.W.1 and there are no any monitory transactions in between them. He stated that
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 10 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
Ex.R1 is undertaking letter dt.02.02.2016 (marked subject to objection with regard to strict proof and relevance). Ex.R2 are the certified copy of third party affidavits belongs to B.Naresh Kumar and Bommareddy Shiva Kumar.
12.During his cross-examination, D.W.1 stated that he know complainant only after receiving summons through this Court. He further stated that he came to know about the complainant after receiving legal notice. He further stated that in the year 2014 he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from one Shiva Kumar reddy who is the son-in-law of P.W.1 and at that time he took one promissory note and one cheque from him and he has also repaid the said amount and P.W.1 returned one cheque and one pronote to him. He further stated that again in the year 2015 he borrowed
Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- from Shiva Kumar Reddy. He stated that he do not remember the dates on which he borrowed the said amount. He stated that the time when he borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- he gave three blank signed promissory notes, three blank signed chques, three NJ stamp papers and three empty signed conquest papers and that while the debt is still pending he again borrowed
Rs.5,00,000/- from Shiva Kumar Reddy. He further stated that at the time when he borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- he gave three blank signed promissory notes, there blank signed chques, three NJ stamp papers and three empty signed conquest papers and photostat copies of land properties belonging to him. He admitted that he has not stated in his chief examination about giving photostat copies of land properties to Shiva Kumar Reddy. He denied the suggestion that complainant is not related to
Ex.R-1. He stated that after 02.02.2016 there are transactions between himself and
Shiva Kuamr Reddy. He admitted that on 01.10.2016 he mortgaged his property of
Plot No.102, Lakshmisubrahmanya Arcade Road No.1, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad-2 to Shiva Kumar Reddy and the same was registered. He stated that witness is confronted with the certified copy of mortgage deed dt.01.10.2016 and he agreed that was the mortgage deed he executed. Ex.P8 is the certified copy of mortgage deed dt.01.10.2016 executed by Sri Reddaiah Kunarla in favour of Sri
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 11 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
Shiva Kumar Bomma Reddy vide doc.No.11171/2016. He adds that he has not received Rs.15,00,000/- from Shiva Kumar Bomma Reddy. He admitted that he has received Ex.P4 and he also gave reply notice under Ex.P-7 dt.12.01.2018 through his counsel. He again stated that he do not know whether the notice regarding promissory note or cheque. He admitted that he has not mentioned regarding Bommareddy Shiva Kumar Reddy in his reply notice under Ex.P7. He stated that the signatures on Ex.P-1 and P-2 are himself. He further adds that he did not give Ex.P-1 and P-2 to P.W.1. He admitted that P.W.1 filed a Civil Suit against him regarding Ex.P-1. He stated that he has not given any police report against P.W.1 regarding dishonour of cheuqe. He denied the suggestion that he has borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from P.W.1 on 24.05.2015. He denied the suggestion that he has issued Ex.P-2 to P.W.1 as part payment regarding Ex.P-1. He denied the suggestion that prior to filing of this complaint there are Civil Suits and N.I Act cases filed against him in Hyderabad courts. He adds that the cases and suits were filed after filing of the present case. He denied the suggestion that before filing of the present case by P.W.1, one B.Naresh Kumar and one Bomma Reddy
Shiva Reddy filed civil cases against him in Hyderabad courts. He stated that the cases were filed after receiving of notice in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false evidence with ill-intention to escape liability.
13.During the cross-examination of P.W.1 stated that he is aged about 69 years and studied SSC and that to some extent he can read and write English. He stated that he is an agriculturist and also own tractor. He lend amounts to two or three persons on hand to known persons. He stated that he got two daughters and they both were married. His elder son-in-law name is Sreedhar Reddy and he is resident of Hyderabad. His younger son-in-law viz., Bommareddy Siva Kumar. He stated that he sent he accused about 10 years back and he know the accused through younger son-in-law viz., Siva Kumar. He stated that the accused is running digital printing press at Kukatpally. He stated that he do not know whether his
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 12 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
younger son-in-law worked with the accused. He stated that he do not know whether there are any financial transaction in between the accused and his younger son-in-law. He admitted that he filed a Civil suit in OS.No.188/2017 against the accused before SCJ, Court, Sathupally. He admitted that he filed an attachment petition to withhold the amounts due to the accused from GHMC,
Hyderabad. He stated that he do not know whether his younger sin-law and one
B.Naresh Kumar had furnished their third party affidavits in his support. He stated that he do not know one Buddi Naresh Kumar. The third party affidavits filed
Sathupally suit might have been prepared at the instance of his younger son-in- law. He stated that he do knot know whether his younger son-in-law had field a
Civil Suit against the accused for rcovery of amount in OS.No.143/2018 before ths
Hon’ble District Court at Medchal. He stated that he do not know whether Buddi
Naresh Kumar also filed a Suit against the accused for recovery of amount in
OS.No.612/2018 before the Hon’ble XV ADJ Court, Kukatpally. He stated that one
Ganapathi Reddy is not his relative, however, he married his village woman. He stated that he do not know whether Ganapathi Reddy filed a case against his younger son-in-law and a case was registered in Cr.No.194/2017 of Kuktpally
Police station. He stated that he does not know whether his younger sin-in-law and
Ganathi Reddy together did drinking water business at Hyderabad in large extent.
He stated that he can’t identify the signatures of his younger son-in-law. He stated that he do not know about any letter executed by his younger son-in-law on 02.02.2016 by stating that no promissory notes or cheques are available with his younger son-in-law and he will not misuse the same. He denied the suggestion that in view of the drinking water business done by the accused, his younger son-in- law, Ganaapthi reddy and Rayala Reddy, some amounts were borrowed for the water business and the blank signed cheques and pronotes were kept with his younger son-in-law and his misusing the said blank signed instruments, he got filed all these cases through him and through his henchmen. He stated that he used to earn nearly an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- per annum. He stated that he is having
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 13 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
PAN card. He stated that he is not paying any Income Tax and not filing Income
Tax returns. He denied the suggestion that there is no legally enforceable debt in between himself and the accused. He denied the suggestion that his younger son- in-law had got filed the present case and other suits through him and other persons to harass the accused. He denied the suggestion that the promissory note filed in
OS.No.188/2017 on the file of Hon’ble SCJ Court, Sathupally is also basing on the
blank signed pronote of the accused available with his younger son-in-law.
14.The learned counsel for the Accused submitted written arguments by contending that the accused, examined as D.W.1, denied any loan transaction with
P.W.1 and consistently stated that P.W.1 is a stranger to him. His specific defence is that he never executed Ex.P-1 pronote or Ex.P-2 cheque in favour of the complainant and that the signed instruments relied upon by the complainant were originally given as blank securities to one Shiva Kumar during prior private financial dealings. He explained that during those transactions, Shiva Kumar obtained signed blank pronotes, cheques, stamp papers, and papers, and that after discharge of debt on 02.02.2016 only some documents were returned, while others were stated to be misplaced. In cross-examination, though D.W.1 admitted that the signatures on Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 are his, he categorically denied having issued them to P.W.1 or towards any liability due to him. His evidence shows that his admitted monetary dealings were only with Shiva Kumar and not with the complainant. Thus, his admission relates only to signature and not execution in favour of the complainant or existence of consideration. D.W.1 also relied upon
Ex.R-1 undertaking and Ex.R-2 certified copies of third-party affidavits to probabilise his version that third persons were involved in financial dealings and that the disputed documents could have originated from such transactions. His testimony remained consistent on the material aspect that there was no legally enforceable debt due to P.W.1. The defence, therefore, rests on a probable explanation for the presence of his signatures on the disputed documents and
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 14 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
raises a reasonable doubt regarding the complainant’s claim of direct lending. Even if certain omissions or inconsistencies exist, they relate only to collateral particulars and do not affect the substratum of the defence. Hence, the evidence of D.W.1 is sufficient to rebut the presumption and shift the burden back to the complainant to prove consideration and liability, which, according to the defence, has not been satisfactorily discharged. Hence, the defence contends that the testimony of D.W.1 creates reasonable doubt as to the existence of a legally enforceable debt and is sufficient to entitle the accused to benefit of doubt.
15.Here, the P.W.1 established the existence of a legal enforceable debt under Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 as on the date of issuance of Ex.P2 cheque and also established that, the legal requirements to be followed under N.I Act in presentation of the Ex.P2 cheque within stipulated time and also issuing statutory notice. As per the suggestions given by the counsel for the accused during the cross examination of P.W.1 appears the defence of the accused is that, he never borrowed the amount and also not issued Ex.P2 cheque.
16.From the cross-examination of D.W.1, it emerges that he admits his signatures on Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, as well as execution of the registered mortgage deed dated 01.10.2016 (Ex.P-8), thereby establishing execution of material documents. Though he attempts to deny liability towards P.W.1, he admits financial dealings with Shiva Kumar Reddy, who is closely related to P.W.1, and acknowledges multiple borrowings, including substantial amounts, without recalling dates or producing supporting proof of repayment. His admission that he issued several blank signed cheques, promissory notes, stamp papers, and signed documents to the said lender weakens his defence and supports the possibility of legally enforceable transactions. His testimony contains material omissions and improvements, particularly regarding alleged handing over of photocopies of property documents, which he concedes was not stated in his chief-examination.
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 15 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
He also admits receipt of legal notice and issuance of reply notice, yet acknowledges that he did not mention crucial facts therein, including reference to
Shiva Kumar Reddy, thereby affecting the credibility of his defence version. Further, despite alleging misuse of documents, he admits that he did not lodge any police complaint, which casts doubt on his plea. His denial of liability is therefore unsupported by contemporaneous conduct or documentary evidence and appears to be a bare assertion. Hence, the cross-examination of D.W.1, read as a whole, probabilizes the complainant’s case and renders the defence version inconsistent.
17.On an overall appreciation of the cross-examination of D.W.1, it is evident that he admits his signatures on the disputed documents and execution of the registered mortgage deed, thereby establishing execution of material instruments. His version that the documents were given as blank security to a third party is unsupported by any documentary proof or contemporaneous complaint and is further weakened by material omissions and improvements in his testimony. His admissions regarding multiple borrowings, inability to recall dates, and failure to mention crucial facts in his reply notice materially affect his credibility. In these circumstances, his defence appears inconsistent and unsubstantiated, while his own admissions lend support to the complainant’s case and probabilise the existence of a legally enforceable liability.
18.It is settled principle of law that u/s.139 of NI Act once execution of cheque is admitted or proved a presumption arises in favour of the holder that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legal enforceable debt or liability, the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the presumption on preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption u/s.118 (a) and 139 of NI Act or statutory presumptions and continued to operate unless rebutted by cogent and convincing evidence.
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 16 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
19.In view of the un-rebutted statutory presumption and considering the evidence of PW.1 supported by Exs.P-1 to P-7, this Court finds that the complainant has prima-facie proved that the cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt.
20.In the absence of rebuttal evidence towards the presumptions to be drawn in favour of complainant by invoking Sec.118 of N.I Act, appear that, the complainant has established the case against accused.
21.In the result, this court finds that the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accordingly, the accused is Convicted U/s.255 (2) Cr. P.C.
Typed to my dictation by my stenographer (Grade III), corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17th day of February, 2026.
SD/-O.Anusha,
I ADDLJUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
NUZVID.
FAC/ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
TIRUVURU.
The accused is questioned regarding the to the quantum of
sentence to be imposed against him, he submitted that, he never borrowed
any amount from the complainant and the present case is foisted due to
friendship in between the son in law of accused and himself and no monitory
transaction took place between himself and complainant. Therefore pleaded
mercy of this court to take lenient view against him and reduce the quantum
of sentence.
However, by considering the circumstances stated by the accused, this court inclined to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence. By considering all the
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 17 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
circumstances, this court inclined to impose the following sentence to meet the ends of justice.
In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable
U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as such he is convicted U/s.255 (2) of
Cr.P.C., accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ONE
YEAR and also to pay fine of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in default of said fine amount the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The entire fine amount of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen lakhs only) shall be paid to the complainant (P.W.1) towards compensation U/s.357(1) of
Cr.P.C., within two months from the date of this judgment. There is no remand period undergone by the accused during the course of trial to give set off U/s.428 of
Cr.P.C.
The accused is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal against the judgment of this court. The accused is enquired about his means to prefer an appeal to which he stated that he is having sufficient means to engage legal counsel and he do not need legal aid. The accused is supplied with the free copy of judgment.
Typed to my dictation by my stenographer (Grade III), corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17th day of February, 2026.
SD/-O.Anusha,
I ADDLJUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
NUZVID.
FAC/ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
TIRUVURU.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant:- For Accused:-
P.W.1 : Maddireddi Bhaskarareddy DW1: K.Reddaiah
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 18 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:-
Ex.P1: Certified copy of promissory note dt.24.05.2015 executed by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.6,00,000/-.
Ex.P2: Cheque for Rs.9,00,000/- bearing No. 929022, dt.15.11.2017 of SBI, Kukatpalli branch.
Ex.P3: Return memo of SBI, Putrela branch dt.30.11.2017.
Ex.P4: Office copy of registered notice dt.20.12.2017.
Ex.P5: Postal receipt dt.20.12.2017.
Ex.P6: Deposit slip dt.30.11.2017 of SBI, Puterla branch.
Ex.P7: Reply notice dt.12.01.2018.
For Accused:-
Ex.R1: Undertaking letter dt.02.02.2016
Ex.R2: CC of third party affidavits belongs to B.Naresh Kumar and Bommareddy Shiva Kumar
Sd/- O.Anusha,
I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid. Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru.
//True Copy//
I ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
NUZVID.
FAC-ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
TIRUVURU.
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 19 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
ABSTRACT: KRISHNA
CALENDER AND JUDGMENT
CALENDER CASES TRIED BY SMT.O.ANUSHA,
I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid, FAC-Addl.Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, Tiruvuru.
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JU DGE – CUM – ADDL.
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: TIRUVURU
C.C.No.46/2018
Date of Offence: 15.11.2017 Presentation of Complaint: 06.02.2018 Date of Appearance of accused: 20.08.2018 Released on bail: --- Commencement of trial: 12.09.2018 Closure of Trial: 27.03.2023 Sentence or Order: 17.02.2026 Explanation for delay: --
Name of the complainant: Maddireddi Bhaskara Reddy, S/o.Nagi Reddy, Hindu, aged 65 years, Agriculture, R/o.Putrela, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District
Name of accused : Kunnerla Reddayya, S/o.Subba Rao, Hindu, aged 41 years, Business, R/o.Flat No.102, MIG 57, Lakshmi Subrahmanya ARKE, Way-1, KPHB Colony, Kukatpalli, JNTU, Kukatpalli Hyderabad, Telangana State
Nature of offence : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Finding : FOUND GUILTY
ORDER:- In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable
U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as such he is convicted U/s.255 (2) of
Cr.P.C., accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ONE
YEAR and also to pay fine of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in default of said fine amount the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
CC.No.46 of 2018 Page 20 of 20 A.C.J (JD)-Cum- AJFCM,
dated: 17.02.2026 Tiruvuru.
6 months. The entire fine amount of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen lakhs only) shall be paid to the complainant (P.W.1) towards compensation U/s.357(1) of
Cr.P.C., within two months from the date of this judgment. There is no remand period undergone by the accused during the course of trial to give set off U/s.428 of
Cr.P.C.
Sd/-O.ANUSHA
I ADDLJUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
NUZVID. FAC/ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
TIRUVURU.
Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.
//True Copy//
I ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
NUZVID.
FAC-ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
TIRUVURU.