CC.No.562/2016 1 AJMFC, MRKP
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS :: MARKAPUR
Present: Sri M.Balaji,
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur
Thursday, this the 26 th day of March, 2026
Calendar Case No. 562 of 2016
Between:
Shaik Basha, S/o. Moulali, Aged about 30 years, D.No.10-1061D, C.N.T. Hall Road, Markapur,
Prakasam District.... Complainant
And
Pothireddy Nageswer Reddy, S/o. Bali Reddy, Aged about 38 years, Akaveedu Villkage, Racharla Mandal,
Prakasam District.... Accused
This case came before me on 04.12.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Javeed Anwar, Advocate for complainant and Sri P.Bala Ranga Reddy advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act').
2.The facts leading to presentation of the complaint are that on 31.12.2011 the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) from the complainant for his business purpose, to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., either to the complainant or his order on demand, and executed a pronote in favour of the complainant. In spite of
CC.No.562/2016 2 AJMFC, MRKP
several oral demands, the accused kept postponing the repayment from time to time on some pretext or other. Finally, on 17.12.2012, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 032107 for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) drawn on Andhra Pragathi Gremeena Bank, Giddalur, as part payment of the debt due under the pronote. Accordingly, on 17.12.2012 the complainant presented the said cheque in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Markapur Branch for collection. The S.B.H., Markapur forwarded the said cheque to S.B.H.,
Giddalur Branch for collection, who in their turn forwarded the said cheque to the Andhra Pragathi Grameen Bank, Giddalur Branch. The Andhra Pragathi
Grameena Bank, Giddalur, returned the said cheque to the S.B.H., Giddalur with their memo, dated 04.01.2013, stating that the cheque was returned due to 'funds insufficient'. For which, the complainant issued a statutory notice on 19.01.2013 by informing about the dishonour of the cheque, and the said notice was returned as 'Refused' on 29.01.2013. Even though after issuing legal notice the accused did not turn up for payment. Hence, the complaint.
3.This case was taken on file under Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 against the accused.
4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/sec. 251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offence U/sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, for trial.
5.In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P9 were got marked. Ex.P1 is the cheque return memo; SBH Giddalur issued cheque return memo to them on
CC.No.562/2016 3 AJMFC, MRKP
04.01.2013. Ex.P2 is the Cheque return memo issued by SBH, Giddalur. Ex.P3 is the cheque return memo issued by them. Ex.P4 is the original cheque bearing No. 032107 drawn on A.P.G. Bank, Giddalur, for Rs.2,00,000/-, dated 17.12.2012. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of decree and judgment in
O.S.No.22/2015 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court, Markapur.
Ex.P6 is the original counter foil to the effect that the cheque was presented in S.B.H., Markapur for collection, dated 17.12.2012. Ex.P7 is the office copy of lawyer notice to the accused, dated 19.01.2013. Ex.P8 is the original postal receipt, dated 19.01.2013 bearing No. 435857523 to the effect that the lawyer notice was sent to the accused through registered post at Head
Post Office, Markapur. Ex.P9 is the original refused registered cover, dated 29.01.2013.
6.After closure of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material in the evidence of the complainant and the documents relied upon by the complainant were put forth to the accused, for which he stated that the evidence is false and opted to adduce defence evidence. During defence evidence, the accused was examined as DW1 and no documents were got marked on his behalf.
7.Heard the learned counsels for complainant and accused.
Perused the material available on record.
8.Now, the points that arise for determination are:
i) Whether the complainant has complied with all the mandatory requirements as envisaged U/sec. 138 of NI Act?
ii) Whether the accused is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant due under the promissory note dated 31.12.2011? If so,
CC.No.562/2016 4 AJMFC, MRKP
whether the accused had issued the impugned cheque bearing No. 032107 in favour of the complainant towards discharge of the said legally enforceable debt?
iii) Whether the complainant is successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act beyond all reasonable doubt?
9.The case of the complainant is that, on 31.12.2011 the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) from the complainant for his business purpose to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., either to the complainant or his order on demand and executed a pronote in favour of the complainant. In spite of several oral demands, the accused kept postponing the repayment from time to time on some pretext or other. Finally, on 17.12.2012 the accused had issued a cheque bearing No. 032107 for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) drawn on Andhra Pragathi Gremeena Bank, Giddalur, as part payment of the debt due under the pronote. Accordingly, on 17.12.2012 the complainant presented the said cheque in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Markapur Branch for collection. The S.B.H., Markapur forwarded the said cheque to S.B.H.,
Giddalur Branch for collection, who in their turn forwarded the said cheque to the Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Giddalur Branch. The Andhra
Pragathi Grameena Bank, Giddalur, returned the said cheque to the S.B.H.,
Giddalur with their memo, dated 04.01.2013, stating that the cheque was returned due to 'funds insufficient'. For which, the complainant issued a statutory notice on 19.01.2013 by informing about the dishonour of cheque and the said notice was returned as 'Refused' on 29.01.2013. Even though after issuing legal notice the accused did not turn up for payment.
10.To prove the same, the complainant himself was examined as
PW2 and deposed by reiterating the contents of complaint and also got marked Ex.P4 to Ex.P9. Ex.P4 is the original cheque bearing No. 032107
CC.No.562/2016 5 AJMFC, MRKP
drawn on A.P.G. Bank, Giddalur, for Rs.2,00,000/-, dated 17.12.2012. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of decree and judgment in O.S.No.22/2015 on the file of
Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court, Markapur. Ex.P6 is the original counter
foil to the effect that the cheque was presented in S.B.H., Markapur for collection, dated 17.12.2012. Ex.P7 is the office copy of lawyer notice to the accused, dated 19.01.2013. Ex.P8 is the original postal receipt, dated 19.01.2013 bearing No. 435857523 to the effect that the lawyer notice was sent to the accused through registered post at Head Post Office, Markapur.
Ex.P9 is the original refused registered cover, dated 29.01.2013.
11.On perusal of Ex.P4 to Ex.P9, it appears that all the said documents support the case of the complainant in respect of all material aspects. Though PW2 was cross-examined, even in the Cross-examination,
PW2 deposed that he is a private employee in TVS Credit Service Finance company since 3 years. Previously he worked in Tractor Showroom in
Markapur in the name and style of Friends Agro Tractors which belongs to his relatives namely Shaik Khasim. He knows the accused who belongs to
Aakaveedu village of Racherla Mandal. The accused used to come to Tractor showroom in Markapur. At about 13 years ago, accused came to tractor showroom in Markapur. He admitted that he did not work in that Tractor showroom, as the showroom belongs to his relatives and he used to visit the showroom. On 31.12.2011, he gave the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused and the accused executed a promissory note in his favour. Shaik
Khasim is one of the attestors to that promissory note. Accused is doing cultivation. He admitted that he enquired about the details of the accused and he cannot say the person from whom he enquired about the details of the accused. He lent the amount only to the accused. He issued legal notice to the accused for repayment of the said pronote amount through his counsel. He denied that he did not issue legal notice for the promissory note amount. He filed a civil suit based on the promissory note. He cannot say the date of filing of the suit and also the name of the Court in Markapur. The
CC.No.562/2016 6 AJMFC, MRKP
accused issued the cheque in December month, 2012 near the Tractor showroom. He cannot say the date. The accused issued blank cheque and only the amount column is filled. He denied that Shaik Aarif Khan and Pathan
Abdul Hafeez Khan are the partners to the Tractor showroom and that they are doing tractor business in the name and style of Farma tractors. He denied that Shaik Aarif Khan is his uncle and the accused issued cheque as a security for purchase of tractor in that showroom in the year 2010. He denied that the said tractor showroom was declared as insolvent and filed I.P. in
I.P.No.27/2015 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court, Markapur and the cheques which are issued as a security were given to him to get wrongful gain and that the accused never indebted to him and never issued any cheque.
12.To support the contention of PW2, one M.Chinna Babu, Branch
Manager of Bank was examined as PW1 and he deposed that PW2 is having savings account in their Bank vide account No. 62131699698. On 17.12.2012, the complainant presented cheque bearing No. 032107 drawn on Andhra
Pragathi Grameen Bank, Giddalur, and the cheque was returned due to funds insufficient. The Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank issued return memo on 04.01.2013. Through PW1, Exs.P1 to P3 were got marked. Ex.P1 is the cheque return memo; SBH Giddalur issued cheque return memo to them on 04.01.2013. Ex.P2 is the Cheque return memo issued by SBH, Giddalur. Ex.P3 is the cheque return memo issued by them. In the cross-examination of PW1, he deposed that the cheque was presented in their bank on 17.12.2012, the cheque was returned on 04.01.2013, and the cheque amount is Rs.2,00,000/-.
13.The defence of the accused is that he never borrowed any amount from the complainant Shaik Basha and he never gave any promissory note and cheque to the complainant. In the year 2008, he purchased a tractor for Rs.5,50,000/- from Friends Tractor Showroom organised by the Proprietor
Shaik Arif. By the time of purchase, he made a down payment of
CC.No.562/2016 7 AJMFC, MRKP
Rs.1,00,000/- and the remaining amount was to be paid by way of monthly instalments, and for that he gave two empty cheques and two empty promissory notes with signatures to Shaik Arif. After completion of instalments, in the year 2015, the said showroom was closed due to their financial inability. He came to know about the Insolvency petition filed by
Shaik Arif. The said empty cheques and promissory notes were not taken back by him from Shaik Arif. He does not know Shaik Basha and he never gave any cheques or promissory notes to Shaik Basha and he is in no way connected to this case. Though, the accused has taken the above said defences, no evidence in the nature of document was put forth before this court.
14.During the Cross-examination of DW1, he deposed that he did not take any receipt from Shaik Arif to show that he gave two empty cheques and promissory notes with his signatures to Shaik Arif. He cannot say the cheque bearing numbers which were given to Shaik Arif. He does not know whether the complainant filed civil suit against him in Hon'ble Senior Civil
Judge's Court, Markapur vide O.S.No.22/2015 and the same was decreed. He
does not know whether the complainant filed the said decree in this Court, which is already marked as Ex.P5. He denied that he borrowed amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant and for that he issued cheque and promissory note to the complainant. He admitted that the signature on
Ex.P4 belongs to him. As per the said evidence, it is very clear that the accused did not make any dispute with regard to his signature in Ex.P4.
CC.No.562/2016 8 AJMFC, MRKP
DISCUSSION ON POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
15.POINT No.(i) — WHETHER MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER SEC.138 NI ACT ARE COMPLIED WITH :
16.To constitute an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the following mandatory ingredients must be satisfied:
(a) The cheque must have been drawn on a bank account maintained by the accused.
(b) The cheque must have been issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
(c) The cheque must have been presented to the bank within the period of its validity.
(d) The cheque must have been returned unpaid by the drawee bank due to insufficiency of funds or the amount exceeds the arrangement.
(e) The payee/holder in due course must have given a written demand notice to the drawer within 30 days of receiving the dishonour memo.
(f) The drawer must have failed to pay the amount within 15 days of receipt of such notice.
17.In the instant case, the complainant presented Ex.P4, the original cheque bearing No. 032107 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Pragathi
Grameena Bank, Giddalur, dated 17.12.2012. Ex.P1, P2, and P3, the cheque return memos, clearly establish that the said cheque was returned with the endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 04.01.2013. Ex.P7 is the statutory notice issued on 19.01.2013 within the mandatory period of 30 days. Ex.P8 is the postal receipt, and Ex.P9 is the refused registered cover dated 29.01.2013, establishing that the notice was duly sent and the accused refused to receive it. The accused having refused to receive the notice, it shall be deemed to have been served upon him as per law. Since the accused failed to make payment within 15 days of deemed service of notice, the complaint was filed
before this Court. Therefore, this Court holds that all the mandatory
CC.No.562/2016 9 AJMFC, MRKP
requirements under Section 138 of N.I. Act have been duly complied with.
Accordingly Point No.(i) is answered in favour of the complainant.
18.POINT No.(ii) — WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO PAY THE CHEQUE
AMOUNT TOWARDS DISCHARGE OF A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE DEBT:
19.Section 139 of the N.I. Act mandates that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
This is a statutory presumption that operates as soon as the execution of the cheque by the drawer is established.
20.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, (2023) 10 SCC 148 (decided on 09.10.2023), has lucidly explained the principles governing the burden of proof in Section 138 N.I. Act cases. The Court held that as soon as the complainant discharges the burden to prove that the instrument was issued by the accused for discharge of a debt, the presumptive device under Section 139 of the Act shifts the burden on the accused. The effect of the presumption is to transfer the evidential burden on the accused of proving that the cheque was not issued towards the discharge of any liability. Until this evidential burden is discharged by the accused, the presumed fact will have to be taken to be true, without expecting the complainant to do anything further. The Hon’ble Court further held that the accused cannot rebut the presumption merely by putting questions to the complainant in cross-examination or by bald denial under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.
21.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 has held that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a legally enforceable debt. It has further been held that even if a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, the payee may fill up the amount and
CC.No.562/2016 10 AJMFC, MRKP
other particulars, and this in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence. In the instant case, even DW1 (accused) admitted in cross-examination that the cheque was a blank cheque and only the amount column was filled. However, the accused admitted that the signature on Ex.P4 belongs to him. Once the signature is admitted, the statutory presumption is triggered and the accused is duty-bound to rebut the same with cogent evidence.
22.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr., 2025 INSC 427, reaffirmed that once the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act is activated by virtue of the accused's admitted signature on the cheque, the burden to rebut that presumption falls squarely on the accused. Future complainants in cheque dishonour cases can rely on the presumption that a signed cheque was issued for a debt, without having to prove their financial capacity from the outset. The accused must produce more cogent evidence when claiming that no debt existed or that the cheque was issued for another purpose.
23.In the present case, the accused has not produced even a single document to support his claim that the cheque was issued as security for purchase of a tractor. He could not say the cheque bearing numbers which were given to Shaik Arif. He admitted that he did not take any receipt from
Shaik Arif when he gave the blank cheques. The insolvency petition copy in
I.P.No.27/2015 was also not produced before this court. DW1 conceded in cross-examination that he does not know whether the complainant had filed
O.S.No.22/2015 in the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Markapur, which was
already decreed and certified copy thereof has been marked as Ex.P5. The existence of a civil decree in respect of the same pronote amount further fortifies the complainant's case. The accused's defense is thus wholly unsupported and deserves to be rejected.
CC.No.562/2016 11 AJMFC, MRKP
24.On the other hand, the complainant's evidence is cogent, consistent, and is supported by documentary evidence. PW1 (Bank employee) corroborated the fact of presentation and return of the cheque.
The cheque return memos (Ex.P1 to P3), the original cheque (Ex.P4), the civil decree (Ex.P5), the counter foil (Ex.P6), the lawyer's notice (Ex.P7), the postal receipt (Ex.P8), and the refused registered cover (Ex.P9) form a complete documentary chain establishing all the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the accused is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant, that the impugned cheque bearing No. 032107 was issued by the accused towards discharge of the said legally enforceable debt, and that the accused failed to make payment after issuance of statutory notice. Accordingly Point No.(ii) is answered in favour of the complainant.
25.POINT No.(iii) — WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT IS SUCCESSFUL IN BRINGING HOME THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED:
26.In the light of the discussions on Points (i) and (ii) above, it is clear that the complainant has successfully established all the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused has miserably failed to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act by adducing any credible or cogent evidence. The defence of the accused that the cheque was issued as security and was misused is a mere afterthought, unsupported by any documentary or other reliable evidence. The accused's admission that the signature on Ex.P4 (the dishonoured cheque) is his own is itself conclusive for the purpose of the presumption. The defence is accordingly rejected as wholly improbable.
27.The complainant having proved his case on all material aspects, the accused is liable to be convicted. AccordinglyPoint No.(iii) is answered in favour of the complainant.
CC.No.562/2016 12 AJMFC, MRKP
28.In the result, the accused Pothireddy Nageswer Reddy, S/o. Bali
Reddy, is hereby found GUILTY of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and he is convicted for the same under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 th day of March, 2026.
Sd/- M.Balaji
Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant:
PW1 – M.Chinna Babu (Bank Employee, SBH Giddalur)
PW2 – Shaik Basha (Complainant)
On behalf of Accused:
DW1 – Pothireddy Nageswer Reddy (Accused)
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P1 – Cheque Return Memo, SBH Giddalur, dated 04.01.2013
Ex.P2 – Cheque Return Memo issued by SBH, Giddalur
Ex.P3 – Cheque Return Memo issued by Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Giddalur
Ex.P4 – Original Cheque No. 032107, A.P.G. Bank, Giddalur, Rs.2,00,000/-,
dated 17.12.2012
Ex.P5 – Certified Copy of Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.22/2015, Senior
Civil Judge's Court, Markapur
Ex.P6 – Original Counter Foil of cheque presented in SBH, Markapur, dated 17.12.2012
Ex.P7 – Office Copy of Lawyer Notice to accused, dated 19.01.2013
Ex.P8 – Original Postal Receipt bearing No. 435857523, dated 19.01.2013
Ex.P9 – Original Refused Registered Cover, dated 29.01.2013
On behalf of Accused: Nil
Sd/- M.Balaji
A.J.M.F.C. MRKP.
CC.No.562/2016 13 AJMFC, MRKP
Dated 18.05.2026 :
The accused Pothireddy Nageswara Reddy is produced through
H.C.No.2212 and H.G.No.554 of Racherla Police Station on execution of NBW.
This Court passed judgment on 26.03.2026 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and on the date of judgment the accused called absent and that this
Court issued Non-Bailable Warrant against Accused on procees.
Hearing on the quantum of sentence:-
When this court enquired with the accused for hearing on quantum of sentence, for which the accused reported that he is having two children and wife, they are completely depending upon him, there is no one to look after his family and that if he is sentenced to imprisonment his children and wife will suffer with starvation as such he requested the court to take lenient view.
Therefore, after considering the request made by the Accused, on hearing both sides and also after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to extend the lenient view in favour of the
Accused.
Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR for the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and further the accused is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) being the cheque amount covered under Ex.P4, to the complainant under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure, within THREE (3) MONTHS from the date of this judgment. In default of payment of compensation amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS.
CC.No.562/2016 14 AJMFC, MRKP
Set-off :
On perusal of the record it reveals that the accused had undergone judicial remand from 11.05.2022 to 16.05.2022 and the said period of detention shall be given set-off under Section 428 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the sentence imposed in this case.
Appraisal of Right of Appeal to Accused :
The Accused is hereby informed that he has got a right of Appeal to assail this judgment before the Hon’ble Superior Courts and in this regard he can also approach the Hon’ble District Legal Services Authority, Prakasam
District, Ongole, for seeking legal aid if he is inclined and so advised.
Direction to office:
The office is hereby directed to furnish a true copy of the
Judgment of this case to the accused as contemplated in Rule 72 of Criminal
Rules of Practice and Section 363 of Cr.P.C, forthwith free of cost and to receive the acknowledgment of the same from the accused.
A copy of this judgment shall also be submitted to the Hon’ble
District Legal Services Authority, Prakasam District, Ongole, in reference to the instructions of our Hon’ble High Court contained in Circular No.3/2018 in
R.O.C.No.228/SO/2018, dated 15.03.2018 and Hon’ble I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18 th day of May, 2026.
Sd/- M.Balaji
Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur.
// True copy //
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Markapur.
CC.No.562/2016 15 AJMFC, MRKP
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS, MARKAPUR.
Calender Case.No. 562/2016
Date of offence17.12.2012
Date of report or complaint22.12.2015
Date of apprehension of the - accused
Date of commence-ment of 14.11.2017 trial
Date of close of trial02.05.2025
Date of sentence on order18.05.2026
Explanation of delay or Due to Non-production of accused and remarkswitness from time to time, as such there is a delay.
Name of the ComplainantShaik Basha, S/o. Moulali, Aged about 30 years, D.No.10-1061D, C.N.T. Hall Road, Markapur, Prakasam District.
Name of the accused Pothireddy Nageswer Reddy, S/o. Bali Reddy, Aged about 38 years, Akaveedu Villkage, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam District.
OffencesUnder section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act
Plea of Accused Not guilty
Finding Accused is found guilty
CC.No.562/2016 16 AJMFC, MRKP
Result : In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and he is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offence and the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ONE
YEAR for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and further the accused is also directed to pay compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) being the cheque amount covered under Ex.P4, to the complainant under Section 357 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, within THREE (3) MONTHS from the date of this judgment. In default of payment of compensation amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS.
Sd/- M.Balaji
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Markapur.
Copy submitted to
The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.
// True copy //
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Markapur.