Sri K.Vasudeva Rao

1 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

APVS030042952024

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE::

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT : Sri. K.Vasudeva Rao IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Friday, the 15th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.66/2026

BETWEEN :

Doddi Shyam Prasad, S/o Doddi Venkatarao, 34 yrs, marketing job, R/o D.No.55-4-140/2, Ramalayam street, Housing Board Colony last bus stop, old Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam

....COMPLAINANT

AND

Vanarasi Suresh Kumar, S/o not known to complainant, 48 yrs, real estate business, R/o D.No.45-55-3/2, Braves Bhavan, Flat No.203, Opp/ Shadi Khana, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam

....ACCUSED

This case came up before me on 12-05-2026, for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Santhosh Manoharan, Sri M.Suresh and Sri Ishak Madeena SK, learned counsels for the complainant and Sri. P.Rambabu and Sri Sistu Ravi, learned counsels for the accused, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is a private complaint filed by the complainant against accused under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (herein after referred as NI Act) to punish the accused and also to award compensation in the interest of justice.

2 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

2.The case of the complainant in brief is :

The complainant and the accused were known to each other for the past several years as both of them were doing business in marketing field at

Visakhapatnam, and basing on the said acquaintance the accused requested the complainant for hand loan and on 13.01.2022 and 15.01.2022 complainant lent Rs.4,10,000/- through online transfer Rs.1,00,000/- i.e., Rs.5,000/- +

Rs.95,000/- by way of phonepe. On 15.01.2022 complainant transferred

Rs.3,09,000/- and Rs.1,000/- from his HDFC bank account to the account of accused.

(b) After borrowing the said debt amount, the accused did not pay anything principle amount, whenever the complainant asked the accused to clear the same, the accused has been dodged the same on some pretext or the other. After several persuasions made by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing cheque No.000052 dated 30.5.2024, drawn on HDFC Bank,

Akkayyapalem Branch, Visakhapatnam for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards part payment of the said debt amount. When the complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 07-08-2024 with his banker i.e., YES Bank Limited,

MVP Colony Branch, Visakhapatnam, the said cheque was returned, dishonored with an endorsement "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT - OTHER REASONS" on 08.08.2024 vide cheque return memo.

(c) The complainant sent the legal notice through his counsel to the accused on 27-08-2024 to his House address calling upon to pay the entire amount due upon the dishonored Cheque amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The notice sent to the House address was delivered on 28-08-2024 and the same was received by the accused. The accused did not pay any amount or send any reply to the said notice which forced the complainant to file the present complaint praying the court to punish the accused according to law and also to grant compensation u/s 357 CrPC.

3 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

3.Upon considering the sworn affidavit of complainant and material record cognizance was taken under section 138 r/w 142 of NI Act against sole accused.

4.After appearance of accused, copies were furnished to the accused under section 230 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein after referred as BNSS) and accused was examined under section 274 of BNSS for the substance of acquisition made in the complaint for which accused denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On perused the record as the facts of the case involves detailed trial and it is not possible to dispose the case as STC as a thorough evidence is to be adduce by both sides. This court upon hearing both sides finds that it is a fit case to convert STC No.1304/2024 into CC.No.66/2026.

6.In the course of trial, complainant/ D.Shyam Prasad examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. After closing the evidence of complainant, accused was examined under section 351 BNSS on the incriminating material evidence available against accused for which, accused denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of Ld. Counsel for complainant and Ld. Counsel

for accused. Perused entire material record and written arguments filed by

accused.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether complainant was able to establish the offence under section 138 of NI Act against accused beyond all reasonable doubt? Point:

9.To prove the case against accused, complainant mainly relied on oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.P1 to P6.

4 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

10.Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.P1 to P6 establish the case of complainant and hence, pray the court to punish accused according to law and also to grant compensation.

11.Ld. Counsel for accused argued that, accused did not borrow

Rs.4,10,000/- from complainant and did not issue Ex.P2 cheque and the transfer entries in Ex.P1 are not relating to hand loan and the said amounts were transferred to the accused with regard to considerations in a sale transaction on behalf of purchaser and the cheque return memo under Ex.P4 does not attract the offence u/s 138 of NI Act and as statutory legal notice was not served on the accused, complaint is not maintainable and and hence, pray the court to acquit the accused.

12.Before considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complaint, it is useful to look into Sec.138 and 139 of NI Act. They read as follows:

Section 138 NI Act - Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. - Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by 5 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.]

Section 139 NI - It shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

13.It would be apposite to first consider the legal position serving as base to the offence underlying Section 138 NI Act. The following legal requirements need to be satisfied in order to constitute an offence u/s 138 NI

Act, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Kusum Ingots &

Alloys Ltd. v. M/s Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd1 “(i) that a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any debt or other liability;

(ii) that the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;

(iii) that the cheque is returned by the bank unpaid either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insuffi− cient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;

(iv) that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; 1AIR 2000 SC 954 6 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

(v) that the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice;”

14.To prove the case against the accused, the complainant relied on oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.P1 to P6.

15.The affidavit of complainant/ D.Shyam Prasad was filed under section 145 of NI Act and it was received as chief examination of PW1. He reiterated all the material averments made in the complaint.

16.During cross-examination of PW1, he testify that he is doing marketing for educational institutes like supplying books, digital content, portals, etc. and accused is doing real estate and he purchased a site with the help of accused and so he got acquaintance with accused. Accused did not deny the said acquaintance. Hence it can be safely held that complainant has established his acquaintance with accused.

17.PW1 admitted that he introduced accused to the purchasers of sites twice and he received commission from accused on both occasions. He also admitted that till filing present complaint, he had cordial terms with accused.

During entire cross-examination of PW1, it was not suggested to him that accused is not having savings account at HDFC bank, Akkayyapalem branch and Ex.P2 cheque does not belong to the accused and the signature on Ex.P2 is not the signature of accused. As per the evidence of PW1, on his demand accused issued Ex.P2 cheque for part payment of debt amount. Hence, upon considering the unchallenged evidence of PW1 and upon relying the three-judge bench judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan2, a presumption under section 139 of NI Act shall be drawn in favour of complainant that Ex.P2 cheque was issued by the accused to the complainant for discharging legally enforceable debt.

2 AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1898 7 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

18.Now, the onus shift on to the accused to rebut the presumption.

While rebutting the presumption, the accused is entitled to rely on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant or he may rely on his own oral and documentary evidence. The burden of proof on the accused for rebutting the presumption is to the extent of preponderance of probability.

19.The first contention raised by the accused is two transactions dt.13.01.2022 and 15.01.2022 under Ex.P1 (bank account statement of complainant) are not with regard to lending money and they were with regard to payment of consideration by the parties for purchase of property through accused. To substantiate the same, accused relied on the admissions of PW1.

20.PW1 admitted that he is not having any document to show that the transactions on 13.01.2022 and 15.01.2022 between accused and himself are lending money. He testify that on the request of accused on 13.01.2022, he lent hand loan to the accused for a total amount of Rs.4,10,000/- out of which

Rs.5,000/-, Rs.95,000/- were transferred to account of accused by phonepe and on 15.01.2022, the remaining amount of Rs.3,09,000/- and Rs.1,000/- were transferred to the account of accused from his account through online. On perusing Ex.P1, all the above transfers are reflected on 13.01.2022 and 15.01.2022 as deposed by PW1. PW1 specifically denied suggestion that the above-said online transfer made to the account of accused are not loan transactions and they do not have creditor and debtor relationship and the said transfers relating to passing of sale consideration by the customer introduced by him to the accused. It is pertinent to observe that PW1 was not specifically suggested what is the name of the customer and when the customer was introduced to the accused and what is the entire sale consideration that was agreed by the said customer to purchase the immovable property and when the said sale consideration was completed. The suggestion made to PW1 is a vague suggestion. Except putting such suggestion to PW1, nothing was specifically elicited to PW1 in order to create suspicion on the oral evidence of PW1 and 8 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

Ex.P1. It is pertinent to observe that even under section 351 BNSS examination, accused failed to furnish any reason why the present case was filed against him.

As PW1 is having cordial relationship with the accused till filing of present complaint, this court finds no strong reason to disbelieve the case of complainant and hence the contention of accused cannot sustain.

21.The next contention raised by the accused is as no legal notice was issued by the complainant to the accused for demanding payment for the alleged loan transaction, case of complainant cannot be believed as truthful. To substantiate the same, he relied on admission of PW1.

22.PW1 admitted that he did not issue any legal notice to accused demanding for payment of the alleged loan transaction. Complainant got marked

Exs.P1 to P6 only. He did not file any document to show that he issued legal notice to the accused for repayment of Rs.4,10,000/- hand loan. When accused delivered Ex.P2 cheque on repeated requests of complainant and in the absence of any specific suggestion to PW-1 how Ex.P2 cheque came into the hands of complainant, this court finds that the failure on the part of complainant to issue legal notice demanding repayment of hand loan cannot be considered as a ground to disbelieve the case of complainant and hence the contention of accused cannot be sustained.

23.The next contention raised by the accused is Ex.P2 cheque was not returned on the reason of funds insufficient and the reason mentioned in Ex.P3 cheque return memo was noted as “88 -other reasons” and hence complaint is not maintainable.

24.To substantiate the same, accused relied on oral evidence of PW-1 and Ex.P3 cheque return memo. PW-1 admitted that in Ex.P3 reason for dishonour was not mentioned as “insufficient funds”. On perusing Ex.P3, the reason for dishonour was noted as “88-other reasons”. It is true the reason under Ex.P3 is not insufficient funds. However, as per Ex.P3, Ex.P2 cheque was 9 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

dishonoured by accused banker. Though endorsement on Ex.P3 was noted as “88-other reasons”, the same cannot be considered that by the date of presentation of Ex.P2 cheque, accused is having sufficient funds in his account.

PW-1 was not specifically suggested that by the date of presenting Ex.P2, accused is having sufficient funds in his account. Admittedly accused did not produce his bank account statement to establish that by the date of presenting

Ex.P2 cheque he is having sufficient funds for honouring the cheque. In such circumstances, even the reason “88-other reason” for dishonor of Ex.P2 cheque under Ex.P3, this court finds that the said dishonor attract the offence under section 138 of NI Act and hence the contention of accused cannot sustain.

25.The next contention raised by the accused is he did not receive statutory legal notice sent by the complainant under Ex.P4 and as the complainant did not file postal acknowledgment, it shall be considered that complainant failed to serve statutory legal notice and hence the complaint is not maintainable under section 138 of NI Act.

26.To substantiate the same, accused relied on oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.P4. On perusing Ex.P4, the address of accused is noted as “Vanarasi Suresh Krishna, D.No.45-55-3/2, Braves Bhavan, Flat No.203,

Opp.Shadi Khana, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam”. The same address is mentioned in the complaint also. On perusing the record, summons sent to the accused was returned with a postal endorsement as “addressee left, hence returned, dated 29-11-2024”. Thereafter, this court has passed the order issuing

Bailable Warrant against the accused. Later accused filed an application under section 72(2) BNSS in Criminal MP No.4322/2025 along with photocopy of his

Aadhar card for proving his identity with his signature and even in the said document also, the same address is mentioned by the accused. Admittedly,

PW1 was not suggested what is the correct address of accused on the date of

Ex.P4. Accused also not produced any document to show that by the date of

Ex.P4, he was not residing in the said address. Though complainant got marked 10 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

Ex.P6 postal tracking service of notice, as it was not supported by section 65B of

Indian Evidence Act certificate, the same cannot be looked into. However, upon considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty

Muhammed & Another3 with regard to defence of non service of statutory notice, at para No.17 held as follows:

“It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a . It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138 , by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As observed in Bhaskarans case (supra), if the giving of notice in the context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of notice a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act. clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, 3 2007 AIR SCW 3578 11 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138 , by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As observed in Bhaskarans case (supra), if the giving of notice in the context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of notice a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act”.

27.In the case on hand also as accused failed to pay the cheque amount within first 15 days after his appearance before this court, a presumption under section 27 of General Clauses Act shall be drawn in favour of complainant that Ex.P4 statutory legal notice was duly served on accused and hence upon relying the above judgment this court finds that the contention of accused cannot sustain.

28.The next contention raised by the accused is since complainant did not file civil suit against accused for recovery of alleged hand loan, the complaint is not maintainable. To establish the said fact accused relied on oral evidence of

PW1.

29.PW1 during cross-examination deposed that he did not file civil suit against accused for recovery of money transferred to the account of accused on 13.01.2022 and 15.01.2022. As per the case of complainant when he demanded accused for repayment of hand loan, accused gave Ex.P2 cheque and when he deposited the said cheque for collection, it was dishonoured.

Since accused gave Ex.P2 cheque and complainant is under the impression that he will realize the cheque amount, complainant could not have filed civil suit against accused for realizing the said amount. Failure on the part of complainant to initiate civil proceeding cannot be considered as a ground to 12 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

disbelieve the case of complainant. Hence, the contention of accused cannot sustain.

30.Learned counsel for accused filed memorandum of argument and he referred the judgments in Sunil Kumar vs. Ramdas delivered by Hon’ble High

Court of Punjab and Haryana on 16.10.2014, Tippayya Swamy vs. Gopala

Shetty K. Shettar @ G.K.Shettar delivered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka on 02.01.2017, Paramasivan vs. P.Manogaran delivered by Hon’ble High Court of Madras on 05.10.2018, John K. Abraham vs. Simaon C Abraham and another4, with regard to drawing presumption u/s 139 of NI Act. This court in the above paragraph of the judgment relied on three judge bench of Hon’ble Apex

Court in Rangappa vs. Srimohan which is a landmark judgment with regard to drawing presumption u/s 139 of NI Act. Since all the judgments were delivered by Hon’ble High Courts, the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court is considered by this court for arriving the just decision of the court.

31.Learned counsel for accused further relied on the judgment in H.T.

Moodlappa vs. C.A.Chowrappa5 delivered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka with regard to giving benefit of doubt. In the case on hand since accused failed to rebut the presumption drawn against him, the above judgment is not helpful to accused.

32.Learned counsel for accused further relied on judgment in Binod

Kumar Lall vs. State of Jharkhand6 with regard to financial capacity of complainant. Since Ex.P1 bank statement of complainant clearly disclose transfer of Rs.4,10,000/- to the account of accused on 13.01.2022 and 15.01.2022 the question of financial capacity of complainant does not arise.

Hence the above said judgment is not helpful to prove the contention of accused.

2014(2) SCC 236 4 2012 Crl.LJ 804 5 2008 (4) All India Criminal LR (Jhark) 6 13 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

33.In view of the aforementioned discussion, this court finds that accused failed to rebut the presumption drawn against him and complainant has succeeded in proving his case against accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point is answered.

34.In the result, sole accused is found guilty for the offence under

Section 138 of NI Act and hence he is convicted under Section 255 (1) CrPC.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-1, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

35.On hearing with regard to quantum of sentence, accused stated that heis suffering with ill health and he is also at present financially in a week position. He is married and he has 2 daughters and he performed the marriage of 1st daughter and his 2nd daughter stopped education after completing 10th class and his wife and 2nd daughter are depending upon him for their maintenance and livelihood and hence, he pray the court to take a lenient view.

Upon hearing accused and upon considering the submissions made by the accused, this court finds that it is not a fit case to take a lenient view to exercise discretion under section 360 Cr.P.C.

36.The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case under section 138 of NI Act in

R.Vijayan vs Baby and another7 at para No. 17 & 18 held as follows.

“17. The apparent intention is to ensure that not only the offender is punished, but also ensure that the complainant invariably receives the amount of the cheque by way of compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code. Though a complaint under Section 138 of the Act is in regard to criminal liability for the offence of dishonouring the cheque and not for the recovery of the cheque amount (which strictly speaking, has to be enforced by a civil suit), in practice once the criminal complaint is lodged under Section 138 of 7 (2012) 1 SCC 260 14 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

the Act, a civil suit is seldom filed to recover the amount of the cheque. This is because of the provision enabling the court to levy a fine linked to the cheque amount and the usual direction in such cases is for payment as compensation, the cheque amount, as loss incurred by the complainant on account of dishonour of cheque, under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code and the provision for compounding the offences under Section 138 of the Act. Most of the cases (except those where liability is denied) get compounded at one stage or the other by payment of the cheque amount with or without interest. Even where the offence is not compounded, the courts tend to direct payment of compensation equal to the cheque amount (or even something more towards interest) by levying a fine commensurate with the cheque amount. A stage has reached when most of the complainants, in particular the financing institutions (particularly private financiers) view the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, as a proceeding for the recovery of the cheque amount, the punishment of the drawer of the cheque for the offence of dishonour, becoming secondary.

18. Having reached that stage, if some Magistrates go by the traditional view that the criminal proceedings are for imposing punishment on the accused, either imprisonment or fine or both, and there is no need to compensate the complainant, particularly if the complainant is not a “victim” in the real sense, but is a well-to-do financier or financing institution, difficulties and complications arise. In those cases where the discretion to direct payment of compensation is not exercised, it causes considerable difficulty to the complainant, as invariably, by the time the criminal case is decided, the limitation for filing civil cases would have expired. As the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Act strongly lean towards grant of reimbursement of the loss by way of compensation, the courts should, unless there are special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, uniformly exercise the power to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount (keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss) and direct payment of such amount as compensation. Direction to pay compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of dishonour of the cheque should be practical and realistic, which would mean not only the payment of the cheque amount but interest thereon at a reasonable rate. Uniformity and consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts, not only increase the credibility of cheque as a negotiable instrument, but also the credibility of courts of justice.” 15 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

37.The Hon’ble Apex Court in Somnath Sarkar v. Utpal Basu Mallick8 while considering the concept of payment of compensation held that it shall be from the fine. At para No.17 held as follows:

17. The second aspect relates precisely to the need for appreciating that the power to award compensation is not available under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is only when the court has determined the amount of fine that the question of paying compensation out of the same would arise. This implies that the process comprises two stages. First, when the court determines the amount of fine and levies the same subject to the outer limit, if any, as is the position in the instant case. The second stage comprises invocation of the power to award compensation out of the amount so levied. The High Court does not appear to have followed that process. It has taken payment of Rs 80,000 as compensation to be distinct from the amount of fine it is imposing equivalent to the cheque amount of Rs 69,500. That was not the correct way of looking at the matter. Logically, the High Court should have determined the fine amount to be paid by the appellant, which in no case could go beyond twice the cheque amount, and directed payment of compensation to the complainant out of the same.

38.In the case on hand also, as civil suit was not filed by the complainant to recover debt borrowed by accused and it is already barred by limitation, complainant lost opportunity to recover the debt along with interest through court of law. Ex.P2 cheque is for Rs.3,00,000/-, upon relying the above judgments, this court finds that the interest on Ex.P2 cheque at the rate of 9% is

Rs.52,000/-. Hence, accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.3,62,000/- (Rupees three

Lakhs sixty two thousand Only) (Principal – Rs.3,00,000/- + Interest –

Rs.52,000/- + Rs.10,000/-) and out of the fine amount Rs.3,52,000/- (Rupees three Lakhs fifty two thousand Only) is granted as compensation to the complainant under section 357(1) (b) CrPC. In default of payment of fine, accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accused is entitled for set off remand period if any, under section 428 8 (2013) 16 SCC 465 16 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

Cr.P.C. Accused is also informed about his right to prefer appeal against judgment of this court.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-1, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

PW1- D.Shyam Prasad -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1 : Bank statement of Yes Bank Limited, MVP Branch belong to complainant

Ex.P2 : Cheque bearing No.000052 dt.30-5-2024 drawn on HDFC Bank,

Akkayyapalem main road branch, Visakhapatnam for Rs.3,00,000/-

Ex.P3 : Cheque return memo dt.8-8-2024 issued by Yes Bank,Visakhapatnam

Branch

Ex.P4 : Office copy of legal notice dated 27-08-2024 issued to accused.

Ex.P5 : Postal receipt dt.27.08.2024

Ex.P6 : Online postal track dt.28.08.2024

FOR ACCUSED:

-Nil-

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

17 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT - DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

CC No.66/2026

Date of Offence08-08-2024

Date of filing of complaint30-09-2024

Date of Appearance08-11-2024

Date of Commencement of trial 12-01-2026

Date of Close of trial02-04-2026

Date of Sentence/Order15-05-2026

Explanation for delayThe delay is due to seeking time by both parties.

Remarks-Nil-

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.66/2026 on the file of IV ADDITIONAL

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

ComplainantDoddi Shyam Prasad, S/o Doddi Venkatarao, 34 yrs, marketing job, R/o D.No.55-4-140/2, Ramalayam street, Housing Board Colony last bus stop, old Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam AccusedVanarasi Suresh Kumar, S/o not known to complainant, 48 yrs, real estate business, R/o D.No.45-55-3/2, Braves Bhavan, Flat No.203, Opp/ShadiKhana,Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam Offence Under section - 138 of N.I. Act FindingSole accused is found guilty. Result In the result, sole accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and hence he is convicted under Section 255 (1) CrPC. Accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.3,62,000/- (Rupees three Lakhs sixty two thousand Only) (Principal – Rs.3,00,000/- + Interest – Rs.52,000/- + 18 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.66/2026

Rs.10,000/-) and out of the fine amount Rs.3,52,000/- (Rupees three Lakhs fifty two thousand Only) is granted as compensation to the complainant under section 357(1) (b) CrPC. In default of payment of fine, accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accused is entitled for set off remand period if any, under section 428 Cr.P.C. Accused is also informed about his right to prefer appeal against judgment of this court.

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

1 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.2745/2021

APVS030036172021

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE::

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri. K.Vasudeva Rao IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

Thursday, the 7th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 2745/2021

BETWEEN:

The State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Muvvalavanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

....COMPLAINANT

AND

1. Eppili Bhagya Lakshmi, W/o Late Anand Kumar, 49 years, R/o D.No.10-41/2, RTS Colony, Bhilaspur, Chattisgarh State

2. Eppili Anirudh Kumar, S/o Late Anand Kumar, 49 years, R/o D.No. 10-41/2, RTS Colony, Bhilaspur, Chattisgarh State

....ACCUSED

This case came up before me on 05-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Ld. Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. B.Murali Mohan, Sri M.Govinda and Sri P.K.S.Apparao, Ld. counsels for accused 1 and 2 and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Muvvalavanipalem Police Station (herein after referred as MVP PS) filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under section 2 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.2745/2021

420 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC) in

Cr.No. 504/2020 of MVP PS.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is:

(i) LW1-G.M.Srinivasarao has been working as AGM in

Narayana Education Trust and A2 was student of Narayana College,

Visakhapatnam. During the year, 2018, LW1 along with LW2-B.Harikrishna and LW3-Suman Chowdhari went to Bilaspur on college marking work, and happened to visit the house of A2 and requested her to introduce people for admission into their college. There A1 being the mother of A2 received LWs.1 to 3 and induced LW1 that her husband is working in Indian Railways and he will provide jobs in back door channel by paying bribes to the officials. On hearing the gullible and sweet words of A1, LW1 Transferred an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- to A1 and A2 through following modes: 1) on 16.04.2018 transferred Rs.30,000/- to A/c No. 8106100922530 of ICICI Net Banking 2) on 31.07.2018 transferred Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of ICICI through cheque No.

514410, 3) on 26.07.2018. Rs.1,00,000/- to A/c No. 820713879062 4) on 26.07.2018 Rs.1,00,000/- of ICICI 5) on 13.06.2019 Rs.48,000/- to A/c 916410645553 of ICICI, 6) on 22.04.2019 Rs.30,000/- to A/c No.

911214626477 of ICICI, 7) on 24.04.2019 Rs.20,000/- through phonepe A/c

No.911213076718, the total amount paid is Rs.5,28,000/-. Thereafter LW1 asked about his job, but A1 and A2 used to postpone the matter for last two years and failed to provide the job as promised by them. Then LW1 along with LW5-K.Rashmi went to the house of the accused and asked about his money, but they denied to give his money and further they threatened that they belongs to SC and they will file a false case against him. So,LW1 presented a report.

(ii) Basing on the report of LW1, LW8-Ch.Suryanarayana, SI of police registered a case in Cr.No. 504/2020 U/s 420, 506 г/w 34 IPC of

Muvvalavanipalem P.S. on 29.07.2020 at 18.00 hours and took up 3 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.2745/2021

investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined witnesses and recorded their statements. On transfer of LW8 being the successor LW9-

N.Ganesh, SI of police took up further investigation in this case. During the course of investigation LW9 obtained statement of A/c No. 631601528984 of

LW1 from LW6-B.Ramji, Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, MVP Colony Branch and A/c No.20286042558 of the accused from LW7-Priyanka Kumar, Branch

Manager, State Bank of India, MVP Double road branch and verified the transfer of funds from the account of LW1 to the accounts of A1 and A2. As per the directions of the Hon'ble XII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC III

Addl. Metropolitan Sessions judge, Visakhapatnam vide Cri MP No. 71/2021

dt. 12.02.2021 LW8 served notices u/s 41 A CrPC on A1 and A2 on

06.03.2021 and received bail bonds from them. After completion of investigation, LW9 filed charge sheet against A1 and A2.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under section 420 and 506 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2.

4.After appearance of accused, copies were furnished to them under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as

Cr.P.C.) and accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C for the substance of accusation made in the charge sheet for which, accused denied as false. After hearing both sides, charges under section 420 and 506 r/w 34

IPC were framed against A1 and A2 read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

6.After closing prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, on the incriminating material evidence available against them for which, accused denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

4 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.2745/2021

7.Heard arguments of Ld. APP and Ld. Defence counsel. Perused entire material record.

8. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether prosecution was able to bring home guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence under section 420IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. Whether prosecution was able to bring home guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence under section 506r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point Nos.1 and 2 :

9.I have taken up points 1 and 2 together as they are inter related to one another and in order to avoid repetition of appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.

10. To prove the case against accused, prosecution relied on oral evidence of PWs.1 to 8 and Exs. P1 to P4.

11.PW1/G.Srinivasa Rao, victim/defacto complainant deposed that he know both A1 and A2 and A1 informed him that she will provide job to him in Railway department and he has to pay in total Rs.6 lakhs, out of which

Rs.4 lakhs as advance and balance amount after getting the railway job and thereafter he paid Rs.5,28,000/- on different dates by way of online payment and also cheque, later as A1 and A2 did not provide job, he demanded them to repay the entire amount and A1 informed that she pay Rs.2 lakhs at first and later remaining amount after receiving the death benefits of her husband.

But as A1 and A2 did not pay, he presented Ex.P1 report to the police. PW1 corroborated case of prosecution.

12.PW2/B. Hari Krishna, PW3 Suman Choudhury and PW4 K.

Rashmi, who are colleague employees of PW1 corroborated the evidence of

PW1.

5 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.2745/2021

13.PW5/Ch.Suryanarayana, Sub-Inspector of police and investigating officer deposed about he receiving Ex.P1 report from PW1, registered Ex.P2 FIR, examined PW1 to PW3 and recorded their statements.

14.PW6/Priyanka Kumari, the then Chief Manager of State Bank of

India, MVP double road branch, deposed that on the requisition of S.H.O.,

MVP police station, she gave account statement of PW2 under Ex.P3.

15.PW7/B.Naga Ramji, the then Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, MVP

Colony branch, Visakhapatnam, deposed that PW1 is having salary account in their branch and on the request of police, he gave account statement of

PW1 under Ex.P4.

16.PW8/N. Ganesh, Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer, deposed that he examined PW4 and recorded her statement and sent letters to State Bank of India, Railway Colony branch, Bilaspur, ICICI Bank, MVP

Colony branch, Visakhapatnam, for furnishing the account statement of PW1 and A2 respectively and received Exs.P3 and P4 account statements of PW1 and accused and thereafter, he served Section 41A CrPC notice to both accused and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against accused.

17.Before appreciating oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is useful to look into Sec. 415, 420, 503 and 506 r/w 34

IPC. They reads as follows:

Sec.415 IPC Cheating.— Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Section 420 IPC - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property :Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any 6 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.2745/2021

property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Sec.503 IPC - Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

Sec. 506 IPC Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

18.Before considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, this court relied on the judgment of Honourable Apex

Court in S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar1 at Para No.10 while dealing the ingredients of cheating under section 420 IPC held as follows:

“10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by (ii)

(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.”

19.In the light of above judgment, now this court proceeds further with appreciating oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution. 1 (2002) 1 SCC 241 7 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.2745/2021

20.To prove the case against accused, it is the duty of prosecution to establish A1 and A2 induced PW1 with fraudulent and dishonest intention to provide railway job and received Rs.5,28,000/- from PW1 and caused wrongful loss to PW1 and they obtained wrongful gain.

21.The learned counsel for accused contented that PW1 was working in Narayana College and at the time of admission of students in the college, the persons who recommended the students for admission will be paid commission by the college through him. It was further argued that all the account transfers were made from the account of PW1 to the account of

A2 are only relating to the said commission and as A1 and A2 stopped recommending the students for admission into the college, PW1 bore grudge against A1 and A2 and foisted this case.

22.PW1 admitted that he is closely associated with A1 and A2 as he used to visit Bilaspur for admission of children in their college. He also admitted both A1 and A2 are his family friends. In the entire evidence of

PW1, he failed to state that A1 and A2 induced him by offering railway job.

To prove the offence under section 420 IPC, one of the ingredient is accused has to induce victim with dishonest and fraudulent intention. In the absence of such oral evidence by PW1, it can be safely held that prosecution failed to prove one of the important ingredient to establish the offence under section 420 IPC.

23.PW1 deposed that he did not state to the police, A1 demanded to pay Rs.4 lakhs at the first instance and after securing the job, he may pay Rs.2 lakhs. He also deposed that the said fact was also not noted in

Ex.P1 report. He further admitted that in Ex.P1 he did not state that A1 informed to his wife that at first she will pay Rs.2 lakhs and after receiving death benefits of her husband, she pay the remaining amount. For the first time in the chief examination of PW1, he deposed all the above said facts.

Hence they shall be considered as material omissions and exaggerations.

8 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.2745/2021

24.PW2 admitted that their education institute give commission for joining students in the college. He also admitted that A1 and A2 are family friends of PW1 and they provide accommodation to PW1 whenever he go to Bilaspur. He further admitted that he did not personally witness PW1 giving cash or cheque to accused. Even in his chief examination, he testify that he came to know about job offer and payment of money by PW1 to the accused through PW1 only. Hence his evidence shall be considered as hearsay evidence, and so, it is no evidence.

25.PW3 admitted that it is the duty of field assistant of their college to secure students and to get them join in their college. Though, he denied suggestion that commission will be given to the persons who joined students in their college, as PW2 and PW1 admitted, a strong suspicion raises with regard to payment of commission to the persons who joined the students in Narayana College to beleive his oral evidence as truthful.

26.PW4 also deposed that A1 and A2 are family friends of PW1.

He also admitted that Narayana Educational Institute offers commission for joining students in their college. On considering oral evidence of PW2 and

PW4 it can be safely held commission are paid by PW1 for admission of students.

27.PW1 deposed that he know the procedure to secure job in

Railway department and in Ex.P1 he failed to state the nature of the job offered to him in the said department. It is pertinent to observe that being a graduate and working as Assistant General Manager in Narayana College, it cannot be believed that he paid Rs.5,28,000/- to A1 and A2 without knowing what is the job offered by A1 and A2. Hence a strong suspicion raised in the mind of this court to believe the oral evidence of PW1 as truthful.

28.PW2 to PW4 admitted that in Railway department recruitment process is conducted by publishing a notification, conducting examination, 9 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.2745/2021

thereafter conducting interview and then only they select the candidates.

They also admitted that they did not find any notification issued by the

Railway department and accused also did not inform about the nature of the job. Even as per the case of prosecution, it did not state a notification was issued, written examination was conducted and PW1 also attended the written examination. In such circumstances, a strong doubt raises in the mind of this court with regard to offering job by A1 and A2.

29. PW5 deposed that A1 and A2 are not the members in Railway board. Since PW1 is having close association with A1 and A2 when they are not having any capability or capacity to offer railway job to PW1, how

PW1 believed the words of A1 and A2 and paid Rs.5,28,000/- to them was not properly explained by the prosecution and hence it shall be considered as fatal to the case of prosecution.

30.Prosecution got marked Ex.P3 account statement of A2 and

Ex.P4 account statement of PW1 through PW6 and PW7 respectively.

Learned counsel for the accused has raised objection with regard to marking of said documents on the ground that Section 65B of Indian

Evidence Act certificate was not filed by the prosecution. On perusing the record, Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act certificate was not enclosed with Exs.P3 and P4. As per the landmark judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Anwar PV Vs. PK Basheer and others2it washeld that it is mandatory to the party who relied on electronic evidence to produce the certificate under

Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Since prosecution failed to produce the said certificate, it can be safely held that Exs.P3 and P4 are not admissible under law.

31.Except oral testimonies of PW1 to PW4, no other evidence was adduced by the accused to prove A1 and A2 offered Railway job to

PW1 and PW1 paid Rs.5,28,000/- to the accused and hence it can be safely held prosecution failed to establish offence u/s 420 IPC against A1 2AIR 2015 Supreme Court 180 10 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.2745/2021

and A2 beyond reasonable doubt. PW1 failed to state that he was threatened by A1 and A2 with dire consequence and hence it can be safely held that prosecution failed to establish that the accused have committed the offences under section 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

Accordingly, points 1 and 2 are answered.

32.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 420 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and hence they are acquitted under

Section 248 (1) CrPC. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before appellate court if any appeal is preferred.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-1, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 7 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1- G.Srinivasarao-None-

PW2- B.Harikrishna

PW3- Suman Chowdary

PW4- K.Rashmi

PW5 – Ch.Suryanarayana

PW6 – Priyanka Kumari

PW7 – B.Naga Ramji

PW8 – N.Ganesh 11 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.2745/2021

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Report of PW1 - Nil -

Ex.P2 : FIR.

Ex.P3 : Statement of account of E.Anirudh Kumar

Ex.P4 : Xerox account statement of PW1

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

12 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.2745/2021

NAM CALENDAR & JUDGMENT - DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

CC No.2745/2021

Date of OffencePrior to 29-07-2020

Date of report or complaint29-07-2020

Date of Appearance08-11-2021

Date of Commencement of trial18-05-2023

Date of Close of trial07-04-2026

Date of Sentence/Order07-05-2026

Explanation for delayThe delay is due to non production of witnesses by the Complainant. RemarksNil

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.2745/2021in Cr.No.504/2020 of MVP Police Station on the file of IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

ComplainantThe State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, MVP Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the accused, parentage, age, Residence particulars

1. Eppili Bhagya Lakshmi, W/o Late Anand Kumar, 49 years, R/o D.No.10-41/2, RTS Colony, Bhilaspur, Chattisgarh State

2. Eppili Anirudh Kumar, S/o Late Anand Kumar, 49 years, R/o D.No. 10-41/2, RTS Colony, Bhilaspur, Chattisgarh State OffenceUnder section 420 and 506 r/w 34 IPC FindingAccused are found not guilty. Sentence In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 420 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and hence they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) CrPC. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before appellate court if any appeal is preferred.

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao, sd/- Sr

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

1 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.4318/2019

APVS030060532019

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE::

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri. K.Vasudeva Rao IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

Wednesday, the 6th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 4318/2019

BETWEEN:

The State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

....COMPLAINANT

AND

Domada Anil Marks, S/o Late Kannayya, 34 yrs, R/o Nehru Nagar, Ramnagar, near Ramatalkies, Visakhapatnam cityACCUSED

This case came up before me on 30-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Ld. Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. K.Apparao, Ld. counsel for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town

Police Station filed charge sheet against sole accused for the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as

IPC), Sec.4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act in Cr.No. 432/2019 of MVP PS.

2 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.4318/2019

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is:

(i) LW1-B.Harigopal got acquaintance with accused since several years and accused taken an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on debit basis in the year 2015, later accused informed that he is running chits and lured

LW1 to subscribe the chits, by saying that LW1 could get good profits. On believing deceiving words of accused, LW1 subscribed 3 chits for

Rs.3,00,000/- and paid Rs.5,000/- per month and for the period of 20 months in between 2015 and 2016. The accused also subscribed another chit of one

Raja Reddy and claimed that chit amount in a bid but said accused didn't repaid the remaining chit amount i.e., Rs.1,40,000/- to Raja Reddy and on believing the deceiving words of Anil Marks, he paid the same amount

Rs.1,40,000/- to Raja Reddy. The said accused cheated LW1 and collected an amount of Rs.8,40,000/-, but said accused did not return till now and prolonging the time. When LW1 questioned accused for several times regarding the money, finally accused made an agreement dated 20.08.2017 to return the amount Rs.4,40,000/- and accused also gave one promissory note for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- but said accused did not give back his total amount i.e., Rs.8,40,000/-. Hence, the report.

(ii) LW9-T.Emmanuel Raju, Inspector of police registered the report of LW1 as a case in Cr.No.221/2018 U/S 420 IPC & Sec. 4 r/w 76 of

AP CF Act of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City and endorsed the investigation to LW10-S.Prasad, SI of police. During the course of investigation, LW10 examined the complainant/victim and other witnesses.

LW11-J.Dharmendra, SI of police took up investigation from LW10, examined witnesses and recorded their statements. Later he arrested the accused in the presence of LW7-O.Apparao & LW8-T.Seetharam under the cover of mediators report dt 19-08-2019 recorded his confession statement and served notice u/s 41-A Cr.PC. and released him on producing sureties and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.4318/2019

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under section 420 IPC and Sec.4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act against sole accused.

4.After appearance of accused, copies were furnished to him under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as

Cr.P.C.) and accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C for the substance of accusation made in the charge sheet for which, accused denied as false. After hearing both sides, charge under section 420 IPC and Sec.4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act were framed against accused read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

6.After closing prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, on the incriminating material evidence available against him for which, accused denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of Ld. APP and Ld. Defence counsel. Perused entire material record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether prosecution was able to bring home guilt of sole accused for the offence under section 420IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. Whether prosecution was able to bring home guilt of sole accused for the offence under section 4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

Points 1 and 2 :

9.I have taken up points 1 and 2 together as they are inter related to one another and in order to avoid repetition of appreciation of oral and documentary evidence 4 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.4318/2019

10.To prove the case against accused, prosecution relied on oral evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and Exs. P1 to P3.

11.Before appreciating oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is useful to look into Sec. 415 and 420 IPC and Sec.4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act. They reads as follows:

Section 415 IPC Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Section 420 IPC -Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property :Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 4 Chit Funds Act - Prohibition of chits not sanctioned or registered under the Act : (1) No chit shall be commenced or conducted without obtaining the previous sanction of the State Government within whose jurisdiction the chit is to be commenced or conducted or of such officer as may be empowered by that Government in this behalf, and unless the chit is registered in that State in accordance with the provisions of this Act:Provided that a sanction obtained under this sub-section shall lapse if the chit is not registered within twelve months from the date of such sanction or within such further period or periods not exceeding six months in the aggregate as the State Government may, on application made to it in this behalf, allow. (2) An application for the purpose of obtaining a sanction under sub-section (1) shall be made by the foreman in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The previous sanction referred to in sub-section (1) may be refused, if the foreman,— (a) had been convicted of any offence under this Act or under any other Act regulating chit business and sentenced to imprisonment for any such offence; or (b) had defaulted in the payment of fees or the filing of any statement or record required to be paid or filed under this Act or had violated any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; or (c) had been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for any such offence unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release:Provided that before refusing any such sanction, the foreman shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) The order of the State Government, and, subject to the provisions of sub- 5 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.4318/2019

section (5), the order of the officer empowered under sub-section (1), issuing or refusing previous sanction under this section shall be final. (5) Any person aggrieved by the refusal to issue previous sanction by any officer empowered under sub-section (1) may appeal to the State Government within thirty days of the date of communication to him of such refusal and the decision of that Government on such appeal shall be final.

Section 76 (1) Chit Funds Act - Penalties : Whoever contravenes or abets the contravention of any of the provisions of sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 22, 24, 30, 31, sub-section (4) of section 33, sections 46, 47 or sub- section (5) of section 61 shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

12.To prove the offence under section 420 IPC, prosecution has to establish that accused with a dishonest intention fraudulently collected subscription for the chits from PW1 and caused wrongful loss to him and accused obtained wrongful gain.

13.To prove the offence under section 4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act, prosecution has to establish accused without registration of the chit run the chit by collecting subscription from PW1.

14.PW1/B.Harigopal, victim/defacto complainant deposed that accused borrowed Rs.4 lakhs from him for his house expenditure in the year 2015 and during the said period accused was doing chit business and he offered him to join as a subscriber and he paid Rs.5000/- per month for a period of 20 months and later he paid total amount of Rs.3 lakhs to the accused by way of subscription and when he participated in the chit, he knocked down the chit, accused failed to pay amount to him and he repeatedly demanded accused for payment and as accused failed to pay, he presented Ex.P1 report to the police.

15.PW2/K.Boby, deposed that in the month of May, 2015, accused started three chits each of Rs.1 lakh and PW1 joined in the said chit and accused did not return the chit amount and later PW1 demanded accused several times to repay the chit amount.

6 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.4318/2019

16.PW3/D.Venkateswara Rao and PW4/P.Rajareddy also deposed on the same lines of PW1.

17.PW5/O.Apparao, mediator deposed that on 19.8.2019 he was called by III Town Police and he followed the police to Ramnagar and witnessed the police caught hold accused and during their enquiry, accused confessed that he is running a chit and the same was recorded by the police and he affixed his signature on the mediator's report under Ex.P2.

18.PW6/S.Prasad, SI of Police deposed that on 28.5.2018, on the report given by PW1 under Ex.P1, LW9/Emmanuel Raju, Inspector of Police registered Ex.P3 FIR and he entrusted the same to him and in the course of investigation, he examined witnesses, recorded their statements and subsequently his successor took up further investigation.

19.PW7/J.Dharmendra, SI of Police deposed that he took up further investigation in the present case and examined witnesses, recorded their statements and on 19.8.2019, he served section 41-A CrPC notice to the accused and in the presence of mediator, accused confessed the commission of offence and it was recorded under Ex.P2 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

20.Before considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, this court relied on the judgment of Honourable

Apex Court in S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar1 at Para No.10 while dealing the ingredients of cheating under section 420 IPC held as follows:

“10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by (ii)

(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.” 1 (2002) 1 SCC 241 7 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.4318/2019

21.PW1 denied suggestion that he did not state to the police when, where and in whose presence accused received money from him by way of loan, how many subscribers are there in the chit, when chit was auctioned, and what is the auction price for the said chit, when he joined in the chit on behalf of accused and he did not submit any documents to show the said fact. PW6/Investigating Officer, deposed that none of the witnesses examined by him did not furnish the number of subscribers and names of the subscribers. He also deposed that PW7 did not seize any documents from the accused to show that he is doing chit business. PW2 to PW4 are not the subscribers of alleged chit and they deposed that they came to know about occurrence of offence only through PW1. Hence, their evidence shall be considered as hearsay evidence.

22.If really accused ran a chit without registration, at the time of collecting the subscription from the subscribers of the chit, the subscribers might have demanded any chit book or receipt for payments made by them.

Failure on the part of PW6 and PW7 to collect any documents which establish that accused ran the chit shall be considered as fatal to the case of prosecution. In the absence of seizure of any such document, sole testimony of PW1 cannot be believed as truthful.

23.As per section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, confession before police is inadmissible under law. Though, PW5 deposed that accused confessed that he running the chit and committed the alleged offence, the said confession of accused is not admissible under law, as it was made

before PW6/ SI of police and investigating officer. Hence, the alleged

confession cannot be believed as truthful.

24.In the entire evidence of PW1, he failed to state when he joined in the chit and when he participated in the auction and what is the amount that was knocked down in his favour. The said evidence of PW1 8 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.4318/2019

raises a strong suspicion on the case of prosecution and hence it cannot be believed as truthful.

25.PW2 admitted that he did not state to the police that in the month of February, 2015, accused borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from PW1. He further admitted that he came to know about the chit transaction only through PW1. It also established that PW2 is not eyewitness to the alleged offence.

26.PW3 also admitted that he did not state to the police that PW1 joined in three chits each of Rs.1,00,000/- during May, 2015. The said admissions of PW3 established that he do not have personal knowledge about alleged chit transactions and alleged payment of subscription by

PW1.

27.PW4 also admitted that accused did not join as a subscriber in the chit conducted by her mother and accused did not receive prize money.

The said admission of PW4 also established that he do not have personal knowledge about occurrence of alleged offence.

28.In view of the aforementioned discussion, this court finds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence under section 420 IPC and sections 4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, points 1 and 2 are answered.

29.In the result, the sole accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Sec.4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act and hence he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) CrPC. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before appellate court if any appeal is preferred.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-1, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 6 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

9 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.4318/2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1- B.Hari Gopal

PW2- K.Boby PW3- D.Venkateswara Rao PW4- P.Rajareddy PW5 –O.Apparao PW6 –S.Prasad PW7 – J.Dharmendra

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Report of PW1 - Nil - Ex.P2 : Mediators report dt.19.5.2019 Ex.P3 : FIR

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

//true copy//

F JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

10 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.4318/2019

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT - DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

CC No.4318/2019

Date of OffencePrior to 28-05-2018

Date of report or complaint28-05-2018

Date of Appearance05-11-2024

Date of Commencement of trial 05-08-2025

Date of Close of trial10-04-2026

Date of Sentence/Order06-05-2026

Explanation for delayThe delay is due to non production of witnesses by the Complainant.

RemarksNil

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No. 4318/2019in Cr.No.221/2018 of III TOWN Police Station on the file of IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

ComplainantThe State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,IIITownPoliceStation, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the accused, parentage, age, Residence particulars

Domada Anil Marks, S/o Late Kannayya, 34 yrs, R/o Nehru Nagar, Ramnagar, near Ramatalkies, Visakhapatnam city

OffenceUnder section 420 IPC & Sec.4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act FindingAccused is found not guilty.

Sentence In the result, the sole accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Sec.4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act and hence he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) CrPC.

11 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.4318/2019

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before appellate court if any appeal is preferred.

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao, xx sd/-

Sr

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

1 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.3324/2023

APVS030051902023

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE::

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri. K.Vasudeva Rao IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

Thursday, the 7th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 3324/2023

BETWEEN:

The State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

....COMPLAINANT

AND

Chukka Danalatha, W/o Avinash Kumar, 28 yrs, R/o D.No.9-1-34, Ganesh Nagar, New Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam city

....ACCUSED

This case came up before me on 04-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Ld. Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. R.Srinivasarao, Ld. counsel for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town

Police Station filed charge sheet against sole accused for the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as

IPC) in Cr.No. 195/2022 of III Town PS.

2 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.3324/2023

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is:

(i) LW1-M.Sravya along with 5 other women viz., Arnbati Aasha,

Boddu Durga Sowjanya, Goraka Lakshmi, Bandaru Renuka Deepti and

Vallapu Dasu Sravanthi (LW2 to 7) joined in Dhana Makeup institute, located at Ramnagar, opposite Meghalaya Hotel and paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the institute's correspondent Chukka Dhanalatha (accused). Similarly

Ambati Aasha (LW-2) paid Rs.20,000/- for Master Course, Durga Sowjanya (LW-3) paid Rs.55,000/- towards Basic & Advance course, Goraka Lakshmi (LW-4) paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards Basic, Advance and Class

Course, Bandaru Renuka (LW-5) Deepti paid an amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards Advance Makeup, Vallapu Dasu Sravanthi (LW-6) paid an amount of

Rs.30,000/- towards Basic and Advance course. But after taking payments,

Chukka Dhanalatha did not teach them any course and passed the time.

When they questioned them about the makeup course, she denied to teach the course and challenged them to do anything. Further, Chukka Dhanalatha threatened them that she would post false news against them in social media, if they asked her about the course. Later on enquiry they came to know that Dhana Makeup institute is not a registered firm and they did not have valid GST. Hence, as the accused Chukka Dhanalatha collected money from them on pretext of Makeup courses and cheated them, they requested the police to take necessary action.

(ii ) On 01-04-2022 at 13.30 hours LW8-K.Ramarao, Inspector of police registered the report of LW1 as a case in Cr. No. 195/2022 U/s 420 IPC of III

Town Police Station, VSP City and endorsed the same to LW9-

J.Dharmendra, Sub-Inspector of police for investigation. LW-9 secured the presence of complainant, examined her and recorded her statement. His predecessor secured another 6 witnesses, examined them and recorded their statements. On transfer of LW9, LW10-S.Santosh Kumar, Sub-

Inspector of police took up further investigation.

3 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.3324/2023

(iii) During the course of investigation LW10 secured the presence of accused and as accused admitted her guilt before LW-10, he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice and instructed her to appear before court as and when directed. Further, he collected the bank account statements of all victims (LW-2 to LW-6) and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under section 420 IPC against sole accused.

4.After appearance of accused, copies were furnished to her under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as

Cr.P.C.) and accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C for the substance of accusation made in the charge sheet for which, accused denied as false. After hearing both sides, charge under section 420 IPC was framed against accused read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and Ex.D1 marked on behalf of accused.

6.After closing prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, on the incriminating material evidence available against her for which, accused denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of Ld. APP and Ld. Defence counsel. Perused entire material record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether prosecution was able to bring home guilt of sole accused for the offence under section 420IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

4 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.3324/2023

Point :

9. To prove the case against accused, prosecution relied on oral evidence of PWs.1 to 6 and Exs. P1 to P7.

10.Before appreciating oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is useful to look into Sec.415, 420 IPC. They reads as follows:

Section 415 IPC - Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Section 420 IPC -Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property :Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

11.P.W.1/M.Sravya, victim/ defacto complainant in her evidence, deposed that she do not know anything about the facts of the case and police did not examine her and they obtained her signature on some papers and she identified her signature as Ex.P1 and she further stated that she do not know contents of the said document.

12.PW2/ A.Asha, PW4/ G.Lakshmi and PW5/ B.Renuka Deepthi who are also victims in their evidence testify that they do not know anything about facts of the case and police never examined them. As P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 did not support the case of prosecution, learned APP after obtaining permission of the court cross-examined the said witnesses but nothing was elicited against accused.

13.PW3/B.Durga Sowjanya, one of the victim in her evidence deposed that she joined in Orane International Institute, Visakhapatnam in 5 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.3324/2023

the year 2021 for learning beautician course and she met accused in the said institute and in the conversation with accused, she stated that she intend to establish an academy for teaching beautician course at Visakhapatnam and she joined in the institute of accused to learn makeup course and she paid

Rs.25,000/- to the accused towards fee of the said course to accused but accused failed to teach the course properly and whenever she questioned accused, accused abused her and thereafter she demanded accused to return fee paid by her but accused did not return and then she approached police and gave report to the police. She also identified her signature on the reports.

14.PW6/J.Dharmendra, SI of police and investigating officer deposed that their Inspector K.Rama Rao who received Ex.P6 report from

PW1 on 14-4-2022 at 1:30 p.m. and he registered the same as FIR in Crime

No. 175/2022 under Ex.P7 and he directed PW6 to conduct investigation and thereafter he examined witnesses, recorded their statements and later his successor S.Santosh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, took up investigation and he served Section 41A CrPC notice to accused and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

15.Before considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, this court relied on the judgment of Honourable

Apex Court in S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar1 at Para No.10 while dealing the ingredients of cheating under section 420 IPC held as follows:

“10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and

(iii) in cases covered by (ii)(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person 1 (2002) 1 SCC 241 6 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.3324/2023

induced in body, mind, reputation or property.”

16.To prove the offence under Section 420 IPC, prosecution has to establish accused induced PW1 to PW5 with a dishonest intention and fraudulently obtained money from PW1 to PW5 and failed to teach beautician course and accused obtained wrongful gain and caused wrongful loss to PW1 to PW5.

17.As P.Ws.1 to 4 and 5 did not support the case of prosecution, it relied on oral evidence of PW3 only. In the entire evidence of PW3, she did not state that she was induced by the accused with a dishonest intention and accused fraudulently received Rs.25,000/- towards beautician course fee. She testify that she did not hand over any document to show that she joined in Orena International Institute and the said Institute maintenance can be made only with the fee paid by the students and the items that were used in the institute are expensive. She admitted that the nine positive photographs shown to her under Ex.D1 are the photographs that were taken in their institute. She denied the suggestion that after completion of the course, they were given certificates by conducting a meeting with all the students and she omitted to state to the police that the certificate issued by the accused is fake certificate. She further deposed that at present, she is not running any beauty parlour and accused is still running a beauty parlour.

18.On perusing Ex.D1 nine positive photographs, they disclosed that training is given to the students and some of the students are doing makeup. It is pertinent to observe that accused did not teach Beautician course, PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5 also ought to have stick on to the same version. Though they are victims, as per case of prosecution, they did not support the prosecution which create a strong doubt in believing the oral testimony of PW3. Failure to teach Beautician course by taking fee does 7 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.3324/2023

not amount to offence under section 415 of IPC. It may amount to failure of service that has to be rendered by the accused. If at all oral testimony of

PW3 is believed as truthful, evidence of PW3 do not disclose that when she joined and how many months she undergone training and when her training is completed and what is the curriculum of training and which part of training was teached by the accused. Hence the sole testimony of PW3 cannot be believed as truthful.

19.PW6 deposed that he did not even visited scene of offence which shall be considered as fatal to the case of prosecution. Except PW3 no other witness supported the case of prosecution and as the evidence of

PW3 do not establish the ingredient of offence of cheating, this Court finds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence under Section 420

IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

20.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 420 IPC and hence she is acquitted under Section 248 (1) CrPC.

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months

U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before appellate court if any appeal is preferred.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-1, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 7 th day of May, 2026.

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1- M.Sravya-None-

PW2- A.Asha 8 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.3324/2023

PW3- B.Durga Sowjanya PW4- G.Lakshmi PW5 – B.Renuka Deepthi PW6 – J.Dharmendra

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on report Ex.P2 : Relevant portion of Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW1 Ex.P3 : Relevant portion of Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW2 Ex.P4 : Relevant portion of Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW4 Ex.P5 : Relevant portion of Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW5 Ex.P6 : Report of PW1 dt.1.4.2022 Ex.P7 : FIR

For Defence: Ex.D1 : Nine positive photographs

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

//true copy//

F JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

9 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.3324/2023

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT - DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

CC No.3324/2023

Date of OffencePrior to 01-04-2022

Date of report or complaint01-04-2022

Date of Appearance09-09-2024

Date of Commencement of trial 23-12-2025

Date of Close of trial22-04-2026

Date of Sentence/Order07-05-2026

Explanation for delayThe delay is due to non production of witnesses by the Complainant.

RemarksNil

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No. 3324/2023in Cr.No.195/2022 of III Town Police Station on the file of IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

ComplainantThe State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the accused, parentage, age, Residence particulars

Chukka Danalatha, W/o Avinash Kumar, 28 yrs, R/o D.No.9-1-34, Ganesh Nagar, New Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam city OffenceUnder section 420 IPC FindingAccused is found not guilty. Sentence In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 420 IPC and hence she is acquitted under Section 248 (1) CrPC. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before appellate court if any appeal is preferred.

xx sd/- Sr

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

10 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.3324/2023

1 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.7037/2022

APVS030255072022

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE::

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri. K.Vasudeva Rao IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

Wednesday, the 6th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 7037/2022

BETWEEN:

The State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Muvvalavanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

....COMPLAINANT

AND Gondesi Aravind, S/o Manga Reddy late, 25 years, R/o D.No 4-16-456, Maddivari street, Peddwaltair, Visakhapatnam

....ACCUSED

This case came up before me on 29-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Ld. Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. K.Nagakumari, Sri Y.Ramarao, Sri K.Sridevi and Sri A.S.Kameswaramma, Ld. counsels for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Muvvalavanipalem Police Station (herein after referred as MVP PS) filed charge sheet against sole accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.27(a), 20(b)(ii)(A) r/w 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred as NDPS Act) in Cr.No.745/2021.

2 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.7037/2022

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is:

(i) The accused got habituated to smoking of ganja, liquor and became addicts to the vices. Prior to 27.12.2021, accused purchased ganja from an unknown person at Pedawaltair bus depot back side and while enjoying by smoking the same at burial ground, Pedawaltair depot, Visakhapatnam, on receiving credible information about the same, LW8-Ch.Shanmukharao,

Inspector of police conducted raid over accused with the assistance of LW1-

M.Ravikumar, LW2-P.Raju and LW3-J.Ramesh and caught him, arrested him and recorded his confession and seized 60 gms of ganja, empty bisleri club soda bottle (300ml) with pipe under the cover of occurrence report drafted on 27.12.2021.

(ii) The occurrence report was registered by LW8-

Ch.Shanmukharao, Inspector of police as a case in Cr. No. 745/2021 U/s 27 (a), 20(b)(ii)(A) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act 1985 of Muvvalavanipalem P.S. on 27.12.2021 at 14.30 hours and endorsed further investigation to LW9-K.Bhaskararao, SI of police. During the course of investigation, he examined witness and recorded their statement and served Sec.41-A CrPC notice to the accused and produced him before LW5-Dr.K.Arunadevi, CMO, KGH and collected blood samples from him and forwarded the same to RFSL, Vishakhapatnam for analysis.

(iii) LW9 forwarded the blood samples of accused collected by LW5 to RFSL, Visakhapatnam through the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Dwaraka

Sub-Division, Visakhapatnam City with a request to conduct analysis over the same and issue report. Accordingly the same was received and after conducting analysis report issued by LW6-G.Srilatha, Scientific Officer vide File no.

VSP/TOX/1835/2021 dt 19.02.2022 and opined that Items 1 and 2 are analyzed by using physical, chemical and chromatographic methods. No cannabinoids are detected in items 1 and 2 and LW9 forward the ganja through the Asst.

Commissioner of Police, Dwaraka Sub-Division, Visakhapatnam City with a request to conduct analysis over the same and issue report, accordingly the 3 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.7037/2022

same was received and after conducting analysis report issued by LW7 vide

C.E.No 3358/2021. dt. 28.01.2022 and opined that the sample at S.Nos 28840 is

Ganja. After completion of investigation, LW10-M.Srinivas, SI of police filed charge-sheet against accused.

3.Cognizance was taken under section 27(a), 20(b)(ii)(A) r/w 8(c) of

NDPS Act against accused.

4.On appearance of accused, copies furnished under section 207

Cr.P.C. and accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. for the accusation made in the charge sheet for the offence U/sec. 27(a), 20(b)(ii)(A) r/w 8(c) of

NDPS Act for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence posted for trial.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs. P1 to P3 and MO1 and MO2.

6.After closing prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C, on the incriminating material evidence available against him, for which, accused denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard Ld. APP and Ld. Counsel for accused. Perused entire record.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution was able to bring home guilt of sole accused for the offence under section 27(a), 20(b)(ii)(A) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point :-

9.To prove the case against accused, prosecution relied on oral evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 coupled with Exs. P1 to P3 and MO.1 and MO2.

10.To prove the offence against the accused, it is the duty of prosecution to establish the accused is in possession of ganja without valid license and he is consuming the same.

4 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.7037/2022

11.PW1/P.Raju, police constable in his evidence, deposed that on 27.12.2021 at 4:30 p.m., he followed his Sub-Inspector M. Ravi Kumar along with L.W.9 K. Bhaskar Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, to burial ground, Jalaripeta and found accused sitting on a pial and smoking and when they reached near the accused, accused confessed that he purchased Ganja from unknown person and consuming the same and the Sub-Inspector with the help of weighing machine weighed the Ganja which was in the possession of accused and the weight of Ganja is 50 grams and thereafter, the Sub-Inspector seized the said

Ganja under cover of mediators report. PW1 corroborated the case of prosecution.

12.PW2/K. Bhaskar Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police and Investigating

Officer, deposed that on 27.12.2021 at 4:30 p.m., on receiving credible information, he along with his staff reached to burial ground situated on the backside of RTC depot and observed accused carrying a paper packet, empty

Bisleri soda bottle 300 ml and kept a hole to the cap of the bottle and on seeing them, accused tried to ran away and with the help of their staff, he detained accused, ascertained his identity particulars and accused confessed that he is in the habit of consuming Ganja and then he searched the accused and found a paper packet and he then sent one of the constables to bring electric weighing machine and after the said machine was secured, he weighed the Ganja and it is 50 grams and thereafter he seized it under cover of occurrence report under

Ex.P1 and MO1 is Ganja and MO2 is plastic bottle seized by him and thereafter they returned to the police station and their Inspector P. Ramanayya registered

Ex.P1 occurrence report as a case under section 27(a), 20(b)(ii)(a) r/w 8(c) of

NDPS Act and submitted original FIR to the court under Ex.P2 and he conducted investigation and served section 41A CrPC notice to accused and sent MO.1

Ganja to the Prohibition and Excise laboratory and received Ex.P3 report in which the expert opined that " Identification test for Ganja Fast Blue 'B' Salt Test 5 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.7037/2022

Positive" and subsequently their Sub-Inspector M. Srinivas Rao filed charge sheet against accused.

13.As per the evidence of PW1, the alleged scene of offence is burial ground situated at Jalaripeta. As per the evidence of PW2, the alleged scene of offence is burial ground situated on the backside of RTC depot. On perusing

Ex.P1 occurrence report, the scene of offence was noted as burial ground behind RTC depot. During cross-examination of PW1, he again deviated and testified that the actual scene of offence is on the backside of Pedawaltair RTC depot. Evidence of PW1 is not stable with regard to alleged scene of offence.

Inconsistency between the evidence of PW1 with that of PW2 about scene of offence creates a doubt on the case of prosecution.

14.PW1 testify that they witnessed accused smoking in the burial ground and their Sub-Inspector enquired accused and ascertained his name and particulars. Whereas, PW2 testify that on seeing them, accused tried to ran away and with the help of his staff, he caught hold accused and thereafter accused confessed commission of offence. Evidence of PW1 and PW2 differs from one another with regard to caught hold of accused. It also creates a strong suspicion on the oral evidence of PW1.

15.PW1 deposed that their Sub-Inspector did not try to secure any mediator from RTC depot. In the evidence of PW2, he failed to depose that he tried to secure mediator before alleged seizure of MO1 and MO2. PW2 further deposed that he did not serve section 50 of NDPS Act notice to the accused, which is mandatory on the part of accused. The said admission of PW2 shall be considered that the alleged seizure of MO1 is without following mandatory procedure laid down under section 50 of NDPS Act and hence it shall be considered as fatal to the case of prosecution.

16.PW2 admitted that in Ex.P1, he did not mention the seized product is flowering top. He further admitted that in the blood sample sent to RFSL expert opined that it does not contain cannabinoids in items 1 and 2. Since the 6 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.7037/2022

opinion of expert does not establish that accused consumed ganja, this court finds that prosecution miserably failed to prove accused consumed Ganja.

17.On perusing Ex.P1 occurrence report, the signature of PW1 was not found. If really PW1 also accompanied PW2 to the scene of offence, signature of

PW2 ought to have obtained by PW2 and hence a strong doubt raises in the mind of court with regard to presence of PW1 and witnessing the alleged occurrence of offence.

18.Though, prosecution cited as many as many as ten witnesses, it has examined PW1 and PW2 only and as there are several inconsistencies as discussed above, this court finds that it is not safe to believe oral evidence of

PW2 to prove the case against the accused.

19.When PW2 sent one of the constable for securing weighing machine and the constable came after some time along with weighing machine, why PW2 did not secure mediator to the scene of offence was not properly explained by the prosecution and hence this court finds that prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence under section 27(a), 20(b)(ii)(A) r/w 8(c) of

NDPS Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point is answered.

20.In the result, sole accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 27(a), 20(b)(ii)(A) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act and hence, he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months under section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before appellate court if any appeal is preferred. MO1 and MO2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-1, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, on this the 6 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

7 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.7037/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1- P.Raju -None- PW2- K.Bhaskarrao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1 : Occurrence report - Nil - Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Report

MARKED OBJECTS

MO1: Ganja

MO2: Plastic bottle xx sd/ Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

8 IV ACJM COURT, VSP

CC No.7037/2022

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT - DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

CC No.7037/2022

Date of Offence27-12-2021

Date of report or complaint27-12-2021

Date of Appearance05-08-2025

Date of Commencement of trial 09-02-2026

Date of Close of trial15-04-2026

Date of Sentence/Order06-05-2026

Explanation for delayThe delay is due to non-production of witnesses by the Complainant. RemarksNil

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.7037/2022in Cr.No. 745/2021 of MVP Police Station on the file of IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

ComplainantThe State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, MVP Police Station, Visakhapatnam. Name of the accused, parentage, age, Residence particulars

Gondesi Aravind, S/o Manga Reddy late, 25 years, R/o D.No 4-16-456, Maddivari street, Peddwaltair, Visakhapatnam

Offence U/Sec. 27(a), 20(b)(ii)(A) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act Finding Sole accused is found not guilty. Sentence In the result, sole accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 27(a), 20(b)(ii)(A) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act and hence, he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months under section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before appellate court if any appeal is preferred. MO1 and MO2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

IV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM