1
APCH080025152017
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS TIRUPATI
Present :- Smt.M.Sandhya Rani, III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, FAC/ III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.
Friday, the Twenty Sixth (26th) day of SEPTEMBER, 2025
C.C.No.447 OF 2017
Between:-
S. Ramakrishnama Raju, S/o S. Bodi Raju, aged about 69 years, residing at D.No.11-154/3-1, Muthu Nagar, Tiruchanoor, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor … Complainant District.
And:-
1. Smt V. Vijayamma, W/o V. Munirathna, aged about years, residing at D.No.8-1, Santhi Nagar, M.R.Palli, Tirupati – 02, Chittoor District. …Accused
2. V. Prasad, S/o V. Munirathna, aged about 42 years, Business.
3. V. Sony, W/o V. Prasad, aged about 35 years, House wife. A2 and A3 residing at D.No.8-1, Santhi Nagar, M.R.Palli, Tirupati – 02, Chittoor District. A2 and A3 are added as per orders in
Crl.M.P.No.3076/2019, dt.25.08.2022.
This case is coming for final hearing before this Court on 03.09.2025 in the presence of Sri G. Vijaya Varma, Learned Counsel for the Complainant and of Sri G. Venkata Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Accused No.1 to 3 and upon perusing the evidence and material papers on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: - 2
JUDGMENT
1. This is a Complaint filed U/s.200 Cr.P.C stating that the Accused has committed an offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC along with Section 138 r/w 142 of NI Act (Added as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.3076 of 2019 dt.25.08.2022).
2. The brief facts of the Complaint are as follows :
The Accused by name V.Prasad represented that he and one P.V.
Harikrishna herein purchased property to an extent of Ac.0.32 cents of land in Sy.No.268/1 in Brahmanapattu village accounts, Tirupati Rural
Mandal under agreement of sale dated 26.06.2013 from its lawful owners
T. Koteswaramma, T. Maheswari and C. Selvaraj and offered to sell same to the complainant, the complainant also agreed to purchase the same for valid consideration of Rs.30,76,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs and Seventy
Six Thousands Only) and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) as advance amount and obtained agreement of sale in his favour on 27.02.2014. Later, the complainant paid a sum of
Rs.13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Fifty Thousands only) to the son of the accused V.Prasad on different dates and the same was endorsed on the back side agreement of sale dated 27.02.2014.
The complainant came to know that the agreement of sale in favour of P.V. Harikrishna was forged one and by misrepresenting as if the son of the accused and P.V. Harikrishna obtained agreement from the owners and thereby cheated the complainant intentionally to get wrongful gain.
Hence, the complainant given complaint to the SHO of Tiruchanoor Police
Station, they registered a case in Cr.No.230 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 468 and 420 of IPC r/w 34 of IPC against the son of the accused by name V. Prasad, the same is pending.
3
In this connection at the request of the accused No.1 and her son
V. Prasad (A2) mediation was held on 19.08.2017 around 11.00 a.m, at the house of Accused No.1 to 3. The complainant along with mediators i.e., Umapathy and D. Karunakar visited the house of Accused No.1 to 3 on 19.08.2017 around 11.00 am., by that time Accused No.1 to 3 were present in the house, Accused No.1 promised to repay the cheated amount of Rs.16,50,000/-, by that Accused No.1 V. Vijayamma’s husband
V. Munirathnam died and as such Accused No.1 and 2 were grief stricken.
Accused No.1 to 3 went to another room leaving the complainant and elder person Umapathy and D. Karunakar in the main hall. After some time Accused No.1 and 2 came out and handed over the cheque to the complainant for Rs.16,50,000/- bearing No.338486 drawn on Canara
Bank, M.R. Palli Branch, Tirupati on 19.08.2017 towards the return of amount paid under Agreement of Sale dated 27.02.2014 in discharge of the said legally enforcement debt. The complainant later presented the said cheque for collection through his bank i.e., Indian Bank, Tiruchanur.
The said Cheque was returned on 19.08.2017 with an endorsement memo as “Drawers Signature Differs”. The complainant came to know that Accused No.1 to 3 issued the cheque from the account of Accused
No.3 who is the wife of Accused No.2 by putting a forged signature and made it to believe as if Accused No.1 issued cheque from her account and by falsely representing that Accused No.1 signed the cheque, and thus cheated the complainant.
After knowing the above said facts the accused come forward and in discharge of the above said legally enforceable debts by the son of the accused under the agreement of sale, the accused herein issued a cheque hearing No.338486 dated 19.08.2017 for Rs.16,50,000/- (Rupees
Sixteen Lakhs and Fifty Thousands Only) drawn on Canara Bank, M.R.
Palli Branch, Tirupati and requested the complainant to present the said 4 cheque after one week, so that will arrange funds in her account.
As per the instructions of accused, the complainant presented cheque for encashment through his bank i.e., Indian Bank, Tiruchanoor
Branch on 29.08.2017, but the complainant banker had intimated to the complainant that the said cheque was returned through a return memo
dated 30.08.2017 by the accused with seal for the reasons stated therein
as DRAWER’S SIGNATURE DIFFERS. The accused with an intention to deceive and defraud the complainant had intentionally given the cheque with different signature than her original signature. Hence, the said cheque was returned by the accused Banker and hence, the accused is liable for punishable under Sec.138 and 142 of NI Act and also Sec.420 of IPC.
In the said circumstances the complainant being a payee made demands on the accused through legal notice dated 26.09.2017 calling upon her to discharge the amount covered under the said cheque within 15 days time from the date of receipt of the legal notice and also cautioned him that in case of non payment of cheque amount a criminal complaint will be lodged by the complainant against him under relevant laws. The accused herein managed the postal authorities and was returned to the sender. Hence the present Complaint.
3. Sworn-Affidavit of the Complainant was filed, and basing on the same, this case is taken on file under Section 138 R/w 142 of Negotiable
Instruments Act against Accused, and process was issued accordingly.
4. On appearance of the Accused, copies of the Case documents were furnished to him under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.
5. During the course of examination of Accused under Section 251 of Cr.P.C, after explaining the substance of accusation for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, she pleaded not guilty 5 and claimed to be tried. Hence the case is posted for trial.
6. On behalf of the Complainant, the Complainant is examined as
PW1 and he got marked Ex.P1 to P8. On behalf of complainant Pws.2 to 4 were examined.
7. After completion of the Complainant's evidence, the Accused is examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, she denied the incriminating material available against her in the evidence of the
Complainant and the Documents and reported defence evidence. The accused is examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D1 was marked on her behalf.
8. At this stage, the Complainant amended the Complaint and also
Accused No.2 and A3 are added in this case. On appearance of the
Accused No.2 and A3, they were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C for the substance of allegations levelled against them in Telugu, a charge framed
U/Sec.420 IPC is framed and read over for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the case is posted for trial.
9.To prove its case, the Complainant examined himself as PW1 and 3rd party as PW2 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8. On behalf of the
Accused, Accused No.1 is examined as DW1 and Ex.D1 was marked.
10. Heard the Arguments of Complainant and Accused. Memo of written arguments also filed by both sides.
11. Now the point for consideration is
“ Whether the Complainant proved the guilt of Accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 R/w 142 of Negotiable
Instruments Act against Accused No.1 and for the offence U/Sec.420
IPC against Accused No.2 and 3 beyond reasonable doubt ? ”
i) The contents of the Complaint are reiterated in the Chief examination affidavit of PW1 and in support of the case he relied on 6
Ex.P1 to P8. In the cross examination, PW1 deposed that the Accused is not party to Ex.P5. The Accused is no way concerned with the schedule in Ex.P5. He knows the Accused since 02.02.2017. The daughter of
Accused namely Nirmala was expired and the Accused has got one son.
One Sadashivam is husband of Nirmala. The Cheque was dishonoured as the signature of Accused is different. He does not know Ex.P1 stands in the name of Accused and it was not drawn from the account of
Accused. He does not know the account number of Accused and the account number of accused is 5611101001099 stands at Canara Bank,
MR Palli branch. On 03.05.2017, the husband of Accused was expired.
The Accused received his second notice. He does not know contents in his chief affidavit. He studied upto 6th class. He does not know the endorsement made on Ex.P4. Ex.P5 relates to Ac.0.32 cents of land. The recitals of Ex.P5 are that he purchased the property from one
P.V. Harikrishna who purchased the same from P. Koteswaramma,
T.Maheshwari C Selvaraju. The vendor of Ex.P5 P.V. Harikrishna is not son of Accused. He has not taken the original agreement dated 26.06.2013 stands in the name of P.V. Harikrishna. He has paid stamp duty for Ac.0.36 cents of land even though in the schedule under Ex.P5 the extent of property was shown as Ac.0.32 cents of land. He has purchased the schedule property under Ex.P5 at the rate of Rs.1,05,000/- per cent. He denied that Accused did not give Ex.P5 to him at any time and the signature in Ex.P1 does not belong to Accused. He does not know Ex.P1 Cheque stands in the name of one Soni. He denied that the
Accused has no necessity to issue Ex.P1 to him and he is deposing false for the purpose of case. P. Koteswaramma and Maheshwari executed an agreement of sale in favour of one Santhamma who is no other than daughter of Accused in respect of property covered under Ex.P5 and P.
7
Koteswaramma gave photostat copy of the said agreement to him after he gave complaint to Police.
Later after amendment to Complaint PW1 is further cross examined. In his further Cross-examination,PW1 deposed that he studied upto 5th standard. He has knowledge about the contents of his chief examination filed on 19.06.2018. He also has knowledge about the contents of his complaint. He deposed that he did not mention in his complaint and also his chief affidavit, dt.19.06.2018, that connection at the request of the Accused No.1 and her son V. Prasad (A2) mediation was held on 19.08.2017 around 11.00 am., at the house of Accused No.1 to 3. He along with mediators i.e., Umapathy and D. Karunakar visited the house of the Accused Nos.1 to 3 on 19.08.2017 at 11.00 a.m. He also did not mention either in his chief affidavit or in his complaint that Accused
No.1 to 3 went into another room leaving him and elder person Umapathy and D. Karunakar in the main hall, after sometime, Accused No.1 to 3 came out and handed over Ex.P1/Cheque to him. He also did not mention either in his chief affidavit or his complaint that the Accused issued the cheque from the account of Accused No.3 by name V. Sony, wife of
Accused No.2 by putting a forged signature.
In para No.6A is the repetition of para No.4 of his further chief affidavit. He denied that after receiving copy of Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination of Accused No.1, he came to know that the Ex.P1/Cheque was not drawn on the account of Accused No.1, he subsequently added the allegations against Accused No.2 and 3. He further denied that the contents of his further chief examination all are false and he falsely implicated Accused No.2 and 3 in this case and Accused No.1 to 3 did not commit any cheating and did not commit any forgery or whatsoever.
8 [ii] On behalf of the Complainant, the 3rd party to the case proceedings is examined as PW2. In the chief examination, he stated that he has been working as Manager, Canara Bank, Tirupati since 28.05.2018. Today he has attended the court on receipt of summons from the court. Ex.P7 is attested copy of Account Opening Form of P.
VijayakumariintheirBankdated14.03.2015vide
S.B.A/c.No.5611101001099. At the time of opening the account she submitted PAN card and Aadhar Card. One W.R. Sony, W/o V. Prasad is having S.B.A/c.No.5611101001098 and it is opened on 14.03.2015.
Ex.P8 is attested copy of Account opening Form of W.R. Sony. At that time of opening account Sony submitted PAN card and Aadhar Card. The number of PAN Card is Sony is DFHPS 2232 P. The number of PAN Card of Vijayakumari is ALEPV 5977 E. Unless he verifies in the system he cannot say whether any cheque book was issued to a particular customer of their bank, including Ex.P1. The Ex.P1 contains the S.B.
A/c.Number of Sony.
In his cross examination, he deposed that the letter dated 14.05.2018 was issued by their bank. As per the contents of the letter no cheque book was issued to the S.B.A/c.No.5611101001099 holder. They will feed in their system that if any cheque book is issued to any account holder of their bank and they will maintain cheque book issue register separately. Ex.P1 was issued by their branch. Prior to June, 2014 there was no existence of Canara Bank at M.R. Palli, Tirupati.
[iii] On behalf of the Complainant, the 3rd party to the case proceedings is examined as PW3. (Witness was examined as per Order in Crl.M.P.No.2403/2019 and 2404/2019 dated 15.07.2019). In the chief examination, he stated that he is running sundry shop at Tiruchanur and residing at Yogimallavaram. He knows the complainant. He has seen the 9 accused on 19.08.2017. One week prior to 19.08.2017 the complainant informed him that son of accused namely Prasad is indebted to him
Rs.16,50,000/-. On 19.08.2017 he along with complainant and G.
Shivasankar went to the house of accused at M.R. Palle Circle at 11.00 a.m., at that time the accused, her son Prasad and his wife were present.
One week prior to 19.08.2017 the husband of accused was expired. Then
Prasad, his wife and accused went into bed room and handed over the cheque to complainant. He did not observe who signed the cheque but it was drawn on Canara Bank, Tirupati. He identified cheque/Ex.P2.
In his cross examination, he deposed that Shanthi Nagar and M.R.
Palle are different areas. The house of accused is two storied building consists 6 houses. The accused is residing in the first floor middle portion.
He knows the complainant for the last 15 years as he is residing adjacent to his house. He denied that on 19.08.2017 he never went to the house of complainant and he never witnessed the accused gave cheque to the complainant and due to his acquaintance he is deposing falsehood.
[iv] On behalf of the Complainant, the 3rd party to the case proceedings is examined as PW4. (Witness was examined as per Order in Crl.M.P.No.2403/2019 and 2404/2019 dated 15.07.2019). In the chief examination, he stated that he is running photo studio at Tiruchanur and residing at Tiruchanur. He knows the complainant and accused. In
September, 2017 he along with Umapathi went to the house of accused for the purpose of mediation. At that time the accused, her son Prasad and her daughter in law were present. The accused promised to pay the debt of her son Prasad to the complainant to an extent of Rs.16,50,000/-.
They sat in the hall of accused. The accused, her son and daughter in law went to the room and gave a cheque to complainant which was drawn on
Canara Bank, Tirupati for Rs.16,50,000/-.
10
In his cross examination, he deposed that he does not now Shanthi
Nagar located in M.R. Palle circle area. He denied that he never went to the house of accused and she never gave cheque to the complainant and due to his close acquaintance with complainant he is deposing falsehood.
[v] TheAccused examined as DW1 stated in chief affidavit that, she is facing trial in this case basing on a false complaint which is not maintainable either in law or on facts of this case. She does not know the complainant and she saw him only on the date of first hearing of this case. She is having an SB Account at Canara Bank, M.R. Palli Branch vide A/c.No.5611101001099. Till today he has not availed cheque book facility. As she never availed cheque book facility, there is no ability for her to issue cheque to anyone. She filed a letter dated 14.05.2018 issued by the Senior Manager, Canara Bank, M.R. Palli Branch along with her statement filed under Sec.313 Cr.P.C which is disclosing that she has not availed cheque book facility for her SB Account No.5611101001099 upto 14.05.2018 and the same marked as Ex.D1. The cheque bearing
No.338486 (Ex.P1) was issued to the Account bearing
No.5611101001098 drawn at Canara Bank, M.R. Palli Branch, Tirupati.
The said Bank Account is not maintained by her. Hence, the said cheque was returned by drawee’s bank with a reason “Drawer’s Signature
Differs”. The Signature of Ex.P1/Cheque is not herself. She did not issue cheque in question to the complainant at any point of time. She does not know Pws.3 and 4 namely M. Umapathi and G. Shivasankar. They never visited her house. In her chief examination Ex.D1 is marked on her behalf.
[[ In her cross examination she deposed that Accused No.2 and 3 are her son and daughter in law. They are residing in D.No.8-1, Maruthi
Nagar, MR Palle, Tirupati. Accused No.2 V. Prasad is doing a private job 11 along with real estate business. She does not know about the land disputes in between the complainant and Accused No.2 and also she is not having any personal acquaintance with regard to the transaction in between PW1 and Accused No.2. She cannot identify the signature of her son/Accused No.2. She is deposing evidence only on the facts within her knowledge, but not on behalf of Accused No.2 and 3. She does not know one Sujatha.
She denied that she has knowledge about the purchase of land of her son Accused No.2 from the Complainant and during that transaction,
Accused No.2 received an amount of Rs.16,50,000/- which was endorsed on back side of Ex.P5. After receiving Ex.P3 legal notice, she went to
Canara Bank and obtained Ex.D1. She denied that after knowing the transfer that the agreement executed by Accused No.2 is fabricated, PW1 came to their house and demanded to refund the advance amount of
Rs.16,50,000/- and a mediation was held on 19.08.2017 in the presence of Umapathi and D. Karunakar. She denied that in the same mediation on 19.08.2017, they all went to one room and she brought Ex.P1 cheque by filling it columns and made believe that the said Ex.P1 belongs to her and issued to PW1. PW1 received the said cheque in bonafide belief that it belongs to her, but they issued said cheque with an intention to deceive
PW1.
She deposed that she studied upto 10th standard. She further denied that Ex.P1 cheque was scribed either by her or by Accused No.2 or 3 as it was happened in one room. She did not take any defence either in her counter or in her chief affidavit, to send Ex.P1 to an expert for comparison. She denied that she managed the postal authorization to return the Ex.P3 legal notice. She denied that she issued Ex.P1 cheque in discharge of legally enforceable debt, with malafide intention, she issued Ex.P1 cheque to PW1 as such she along with Accused No.2 and 3 12 are liable for prosecution. She denied Ex.D1 was created for the purpose of this case. The signature shown to her on served postal acknowledgment and on Ex.P1 are not her signatures. She denied her evidence in her chief affidavit is false.
[vi] In order to prove the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act the initial burden is on the Complainant to prove that the Cheque was issued to discharge legally enforceable debt or liability. It is for the Complainant to establish the case against the Accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. Once the Complainant is discharged from his initial burden the onus of proof shifts on to the Accused No.1 to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act that the Cheque is not issued for discharging legally enforceable debt. In order to prove his case the Complainant testified himself as PW1 and 3rd parties as PW2 to PW4 and relied on
Ex.P1 to P8.
The main contention raised by Accused No.1 through Ex.D1
Letter of Canara bank that she has not availed any Cheque book facility till date. The Bank account of Ex.P1 is not maintained by her. Further
Complainant is utter stranger to her. The evidence of PW2/Bank Manager supports contention of Accused No.1. On the said aspect the Learned defence counsel relied on
Jugesh Sehgal Vs Shamsher Singh Gogi ( 2009 SAR (Criminal)
741) Hon’ble Supreme Court Dt.10.7.2009
In the above matter, the Complainant having realised that the dishonoured cheque was issued from an account which was not maintained by Accused No. 1, but by one Shilpa Choudhary. The
Complainant then filed FIR against all the Accused for offences under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 of IPC. As per Complainant's own 13 pleadings, the bank account from where the Cheque had been issued was not held in the name of appellant and therefore, one of the requisite ingredients of Section 138 of the Act was not satisfied. Under the circumstances, continuance of further proceedings in the complaint under
Section 138 of the Act against the appellant would be an abuse of the process of the court. Consequently appeal is allowed.
The above finding is squarely applicable to case facts where it came to light that Ex.P1 Cheque do not belong to account of Accused No.1.
However the Complaint under Section 138 N.I Act came to be filed against her. Since the basic ingredient of Section 138 N.I Act is not fulfilled, no case made out against Accused No.1 [vii] The main contention raised by Accused is that the original
Complaint is silent about Complainant along with PW3 and PW4 went to the house of Accused on 19.8.2017 at 11 AM, the Accused went into a room, came out and handed over Cheque to Complainant for
Rs.16,50,000/- towards return of amount paid under Agreement of sale
Dt. 27.2.2014. Further the same is amended therefore has to be
considered as introduced after Section 313 Cr.P.C examination of
Accused No.1 to suit the case of Complainant hence has to be discarded in toto. When the same is considered, both PW3 and PW4 are examined prior to said amendment to Complaint, but they reiterated the occurrence
Dt.19.8.2017 in their evidence. Hence the same cannot be treated as created contention. Hence said omission of occurrence Dt. 19.8.2017 in
Complaint do not benefit the case of Accused.
The motive for the alleged offence against Accused No.2 and 3 for the offence U/Sec. 420 IPC is that Accused No.2 and one P.V
Harikrishna made believe Complainant that they purchased property of
Ac.0.32 cents in Sy.No.268/1 in Brahmanpattu village accounts under 14 agreement of sale Dt.26.6.2013 from its lawful owners. The Complainant believing the same entered into Ex.P5 Agreement of sale Dt.27.2.2014 with P.V Harikrishna by paying advance of Rs.3,00,000/-. Susequently the
Complainant made part payments and the same are endorsed by
Accused No.2 on reverse of Ex.P5. The Accused No.2 received payment of Rs.16,50,000/- as per the document. Later the Complainant came to know that Agreement in favour of P.V Harikrishna is forged and he lodged
FIR under Ex.P6 against Accused No.2, PV Harikrishna and Masthan
Raju for Sections 468, 420 IPC. Later Ex.P1 is issued by Accused to discharge amount of Rs.16,50,000/- due to Complainant.
No steps taken by Accused No.2 for sending sigantures in Ex.P5 for Expert opinion to disprove contention of Complainant. The Ex.P5 agreement could not be disputed by Accused No.2 in any manner. So motive for the offence is established through the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 and Ex.P5. Therefore it amounts that he in collusion with P.V
Harikrishna cheated Complainant and made him part with alleged amount for wrongful gain with created document. Further the Accused No.3 acted hand in glove with her husband and got issued Ex.P1 Cheque with full knowledge. The Accused No.3 could not explain how Cheque of her account came into the hands of Complainant. The Complainant with their representation believed the Cheque belong to Accused No.1 filed
Complaint against her. Therefore the dishonest intention of Accused No.2 and 3 is established in the case and they are found to be guilty for the offence under Section 420 IPC.
In view of the above discussion it is evident that the guilt of the
Accused No.2 and 3 is established by the Complainant beyond reasonable doubt and thereby the Accused are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Hence this point is answered in favour of the Complainant.
15
9.In the result, the Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act and she is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The Accused No.2 and 3 are found guilty for the offence under Section 420 IPC, as such they are convicted for the same under
Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
Typed dictation to Additional Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 26 th day of SEPTEMBER, 2025.
Sd/-M. Sandhya Rani,
III Additional Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC V Additional Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati. On being questioned with regard to quantum of sentence under
Section 248(2) Cr.P.C by appraising the punishment for the offence under
Section 420 IPC, the Accused No.2 and 3 pleaded to take lenient view.
Considering the nature of offence proved against the Accused where it is offence against property having much impact on society this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to take lenient view.
In the result the Accused No.2 and 3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of three months. The Accused are informed of their right to prefer an Appeal.The Total fine amount is Rs.10,000/-.
The Bail Bonds of the Accused No.2 and 3 shall stand cancelled after 6 months, from the date of this Judgment, as per Section 437-A of Criminal
Procedure Code.
pronounced by me in open Court on this the 26 th Typed dictation to Additional Stenographer, corrected and
day of SEPTEMBER, 2025.
Sd/-M. Sandhya Rani,
III Additional Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC/ III Additional Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati.
16
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
Complainant PW1S. Ramakrishnama Raju
PW2S. Durga Prasad
PW3M. Umapathy
PW4G. Sivashankar
Accused D.W.1: V. Vijayamma @ Vijaya Kumari.
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
Ex.P1 19.08.2017Original Cheque issued by the accused bearing No.338486.
Ex.P2 30.08.2017Original Return Memo given by the accused banker.
Ex.P3 26.09.2017Office copy of legal notice with two postal receipts,
Ex.P4 –Postal returned cover.
Ex.P5 27.02.2014Agreement of sale executed by P. Harikrishna in favour of Complainant.
Ex.P6 08.11.2016Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.230/2016 of Tiruchanur Police Station for the offence under Sec.468, 420 of IPC.
Ex.P7 14.03.2015Attested copy of Account Opening Form of P. Vijayakumari/A1
Ex.P8 14.03.2015Attested copy of Account Opening Form of W.R. Sony/A3 Accused Nil
Sd/- M. Sandhya Rani,
III Additional Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC/V Additional Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati. // True Copy//
III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, FAC V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS TIRUPATI
Calender as per Rule 67 Crl.R.P
Present :- Smt.M.Sandhya Rani, III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, FAC/ V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.
C.C. No.447 of 2017
Date of offence19.08.2017
Date of filing08.11.2017
Date of taken file03.02.2018
Date of apprehension (appearance)31.05.2018
Date of commencement of trail19.06.2018
Date of close of trail04.09.2024
Date of Judgment 26.09.2025
ComplainantS. Ramakrishnama Raju, S/o S. Bodi Raju, aged about 69 years, residing at D.No.11-154/3-1, Muthu Nagar, Tiruchanoor, Tiru- pati Rural Mandal, Chittoor Dis- trict.
Name and address of the accused
1. Smt V. Vijayamma, W/o V. Munirathna, aged about 69 years, residing at D.No.8-1, Santhi Nagar, M.R.Palli, Tirupati – 02, Chittoor District.
2. V. Prasad, S/o V. Munirathna, aged about 42 years, Business.
3. V. Sony, W/o V. Prasad, aged about 35 years, House wife.
A2 and A3 residing at D.No.8-1, Santhi Nagar, M.R.Palli, Tirupati – 02, Chittoor District.
A2 and A3 are added as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.3076/2019, dt.25.08.2022.
Nature of offenceu/Secs.138 r/w 142 of NI Act and 420 of Indian Penal Code,1860.
Plea of the Accused Found not guilty
FindingA1 Found not guilty
A2 and A3 Found guilty
Sentence or order:IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act and she is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The Accused No.2 and 3 are found guilty for the offence under Section 420 IPC, as such they are convicted for the same under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
On being questioned with regard to quantum of sentence under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C by appraising the punishment for the offence under Section 420 IPC, the Accused No.2 and 3 pleaded to take lenient view.
Considering the nature of offence proved against the Accused where it is offence against property having much impact on society this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to take lenient view.
The Accused No.2 and 3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. The Accused are informed of their right to prefer an Appeal.The Total fine amount is Rs.10,000/-. The Bail Bonds of the Accused No.2 and 3 shall stand cancelled after 6 months, from the date of this Judgment, as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.
Sd/- M. Sandhya Rani,
III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, FAC V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. // True Copy//
Sd/- M. Sandhya Rani,
III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, FAC V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I
CLASS, TIRUPATI.
CCNo. 447 of 2017
Name:Religion:
Father’s/:age: Husband’s name
Village :Calling:
Mandal:Date:
Q.You/A3 have found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 IPC, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also do liable to fime.Do you want to say anything with regard to quantum of sentence?
Ans:
Sd/- M. Sandhya Rani,
III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, FAC V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.