Sri M.yesuratnam

C.C.No:1073/2019P a g e | 1 SM.NDL

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE : NANDYAL

Present:-Sri M. YESURATNAM, Special Magistrate, Nandyal

Dated this on Wednesday, the 19th day of NOVEMBER, 2025

C.C.No.1073 of 2019

Burra Krishnaiah, aged about 32 years, S/o Pedda Chowdanna, R/o H.No. 1-30, Venkatapuram Village and Post, Hamlet of Pandlapuram village, Banganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District. ….Complainant - Versus -

Kambampati Srinivas, aged about 50 years, S/o Madar, Seethya Thanda, Puchakayala gudem, Thopucherla Village, Vemulapalli Mandal, Nalgonda Dist. ….Accused

This Case came before me today i.e., on 19-11-2025 for final Hearing in the presence of Sri. Thathireddy Rama Gopal Reddy Advocate for the

Complainant and Sri. S.I Khaleel for Accused upon the perusal of the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a private complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence U/Sec 138 R/w 142 of N.I Act 1881 as amended by act 66/88, with the following allegations.

2.The accused had got acquaintance with the complainant since 9 years from the year 2010. The accused purchased old tractors from the complainant and others in Banganapalle town, Nandyal and its surrounding villages and sell the same in various places. The accused used to borrow

C.C.No:1073/2019P a g e | 2 SM.NDL amounts as hand loans and also under promissory notes as and when necessary from the complainant. Basing on close friendship, the accused spoke to the complainant over telephone in the 1st week of march 2019 for arranging of Rs.6,50,000/- for purchase of old tractors. Accordingly the accused approached the complainant on 10.03.2019 at about 09:30 P.M for want of urgent need of money for his business necessities and for arrange of

Rs.6,50,000/- and promised to repay the same within one month. The complainant agreed to lent the above amount and asked the accused to execute a demand promissory note for the above said amount. But due to non availability of promissory note at the time, the accused having cheque leaf with him, agreed to issued post dated cheque towards the security of the amount, the complainant agrees. Having confidence and good faith on the accused and due to friendship, the complainant lent an amount of

Rs.6,50,000/- to the accused as hand loan and towards security of the hand loan on the same day i.e., 10.03.2019 the accused issued a post dated cheque bearing No. 082402 mentioning the date 10.04.2019 for Rs.6,50,000/- of

IndusInd Bank Ltd., Miryalaguda Branch, Nalgonda District in favour of the complainant. The accused also promised the complainant that interest amount will be paid within short period and also further promised that the said cheque issued by him will be honored after 2nd week of April 2019, the accused issued the said cheque for discharge of his liability due to the complainant towards the hand loan amount which is legally enforceable debt due to the complainant.

3.Accordingly after 10.04.2019 the complainant approached the accused and demanded in to discharge the hand loan amount and take back the

C.C.No:1073/2019P a g e | 3 SM.NDL cheque issued by him, but the accused having promised to repay the amount to him and has been postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Finally, as per the request of the accused on 29.04.2019 the complainant presented the cheque for collection through Karnataka Bank Ltd., Nandyal and the same was dishonored on 30.04.2019 with an endorsement that “NO SUCH

ACCOUNT”. The said information was received by the complainant on 06.05.2019 through the complainant’s bank. Thereafter the complainant as required U/Sec 138(b) of N.I Act with in 30 days from the date of information from the bank had issued a statutory legal notice to the accused on 14.05.2019 and posted on 20.05.2019 by Register post with acknowledgement calling upon the accused for payment of dishonor cheque amount of Rs.

6,50,000/- with in 15 days from the date of receipt of lawyer notice. The notice was returned with in an endorsement “The Addressee out of Station” and returned to the counsel on 31.05.2019. The complainant waited for 15 days after issuance of the notice and filed this complaint within one month.

Hence accused is liable for punishment U/Sec 138 of N.I Act.

4.When the accused appeared before the court, copies of all the documents on which the complainant relied were supplied to him U/Sec 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.When the accused was examined U/Sec 251 of Cr.P.C by putting the

Substance of the accusations leveled against him, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the complainant, PW.1 is examined and Exs.P1 to P6 are

C.C.No:1073/2019P a g e | 4 SM.NDL got marked.

7.After closure of evidence on behalf of the complainant, the accused was called upon to explain the incrementing material evidence appearing against him in the evidence of Pw.1 U/Sec 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard, arguments from the learned counsels on both side.

9.Apart from oral arguments both sides filed the citations.

10. Now, the Point for consideration in this case is,

11. “Whether the Complainant has proved the guilt of the Accused

beyond all reasonable doubt” or “The accused would have disproved

the case of the complainant against him” ?

12.To prove the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act, the following ingredients are to be established.

i.Whether the Cheque has been issued by the Accused from his bank account maintained by him to discharge any debt or other liability?

ii.Whether the Cheque has been presented to the Bank within a period of 3 months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier?

iiiWhether the Cheque was returned with an endorsement ”Funds insufficient” or or with any other reason?

iv.Whether the Complainant demanded for payment of the said amount by giving notice in writing to the accused within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the Cheque as unpaid?

v.Whether the Accused fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the complainant, within 15 days of the receipt of the said Notice?

C.C.No:1073/2019P a g e | 5 SM.NDL

13. Point No.1:- Whether the Cheque has been issued by the Accused

from his bank account maintained by him to discharge any debt or other

liability?

a) On perusal of the material evidence on record due to the friendship between Complainant/PW.1 and accused from 2010 onwards, the accused when ever he fell necessity and need he used to borrow the amounts from the complainant by executing promissory notes or by taking the hand loans with a promise to repay the amounts within stipulated time. On account of the closeness the accused who had been doing the old tractors and vehicle business from the complainant and others in and around Banganapalle town, nandyal and it’s surrounding places and selling the same in various places. Originally the complainant belongs to the Banganapalle Mandal, where as the accused belongs to Nalgonda of Telangana State due to the business dealings of old tractors and vehicles the accused borrowed the amounts from the complainant under promissory notes but the so called promissory notes on any respects could not filed by the complainant in this complaint. As per the saying of the PW.1 in the 1st week of March 2019 the accused spoke to him over telephone and requested to arrange an amount of

Rs.6,50,000/- for purchase of old tractors.

b) Subsequently on 10.03.2019 at about 09:30 P.M as requested by the accused he approached the complainant and beg to provide a sum of

Rs.6,50,000/- as hand loan. Even though ten days prior intimation was given by the accused to the complainant to provide the amount of Rs.6,50,000/-, the complainant could not take any steps in order to obtain any promissory note or any receipt from the accused as a token of the amount which said have

C.C.No:1073/2019P a g e | 6 SM.NDL been advanced by him. PW.1 very innocently stated that on 10.03.2019 at about 09:30 P.M as the accused already asked to him to arrange an amount of

Rs.6,50,000/- and promised to repay the same with in one month, without denying the same and refusing the request of the accused the

Complainant/PW.1 advanced the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the accused by obtaining a post dated cheque which is Ex.P1 a Minimum common sense man can ascertain whether the so called cheque would be honored or not if its presentation in the bank. But as per the version of PW.1 when the so called posted dated cheque said have been issued by the accused was presented in his bank account through the Karnataka Bank, Ltd., Nandyal on 29.04.2019 and the same was dishonored on 30.04.2019 with an endorsement that “No such account” intimation was received from the IndusInd bank Ltd,

Miryalaguda, Branch, Nalgonda in such a situations whether the version of

PW.1 is trust worthy or not is to be seen.

c) The learned counsel for accused argued that One Ranga Swamy

Reddy native of Nandyal town who is known to the complainant for the last 20 years, both are doing jointly the old vehicles business. The accused also doing the same business and between accused and said Rangaswamy reddy there is a friendship for the last 25 years. The accused having good properties and he is well acquaintance with Rangaswamy reddy but the accused is nothing to do with complainant and to show the business transactions the old tractors and vehicles between accused and complainant no proof has been filed by the complainant. Further the learned counsel argued that the complainant failed to give how much amount he used to get the turnover his business per year moreover the complainant is not income

C.C.No:1073/2019P a g e | 7 SM.NDL tax assesse and to show his capacity and having such a huge amount of

Rs.6,50,000/- in his possession not produced any proof. So all these lacunose from the complainant side shows that, the complainant would have acted as a glove in the hands of his master One Rangaswamy reddy who had business transactions with the accused and the subject cheque which was landed in the hands of Rangaswamy reddy from the accused towards their business transactions the same has been misused by the Rangaswamy reddy through the complainant by filling this complaint.

d) To establish the contention of the accused side the learned counsel

for accused relied and filed a citation which is reported in

The Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 636/2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8641/2018

Basalingappa ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Mudibasappa … Respondent(s) where in it was held that the Financial capacity of the complainant is “Perverse”.

d) In the facts of this case the Complainant/PW.1 being a House white ration

Card holder and not income tax assesse except having a pan card he could not produce any scrap of paper to show that he is having such a means and capacity to provide such a huge amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the accused as a hand loan. Apart from that the complainant could not file any promissory note or receipt in order to believe that previously he advised the amounts to the accused under promissory notes or otherwise and those debts were discharged by the accused.

C.C.No:1073/2019P a g e | 8 SM.NDL

e) The learned counsel for the complainant argued that since 14 years from the year 2010 the accused had close acquaintance with complainant/PW.1 so on account of the closeness and the business transactions between them on 10.03.2019 at about 09:30 P.M the accused came to the complainant as he was already informed and borrowed cash amount of Rs.6,50,000/- promising to repay the same within one month.

Accordingly, he issued the subject cheque Ex.P1 to the complainant for discharge of legally enforceable debt.

f) In support of contention and the case of the complainant. The learned counsel for complainant relied and filed the rulings which are reported in, (1) 2019 Crl.L.J PgNo: 3227 (SC) (2) 2016 (2) ALD (crl.). 809 (SC) (3) 2001 (2) ALT (Crl.). 382 (SC) (4) 1994 (1) ALT Crl. 56 (SC)

Where in it was held that,

On ground that cheques, post dated and issued by

way of security for repayment of loan installments

and not for discharge of existing liability,

A meaningful reading of the provisions of the

Negotiable Instruments Act including, in

particular sections 20,87 and 139 makes it amply

clear 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 the payment of debt or

in discharge of liability. It is immaterial that

the cheque may have been filed in by any person

other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly

singed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise

valid, a penal provisions of Section 138 would be

attracted.

g) In the facts of the case from the side of the accused the signature of the accused on Ex.P1 cheque not denied by the accused side but the contention of the accused side is that the Ex.P1 cheque is given to One Ranga

C.C.No:1073/2019P a g e | 9 SM.NDL

Swamy Reddy who is master of complainant under him the complainant has been working and the said Ranga Swamy reddy had the business dealing with accused for the last 20 to 25 years the same has been admitted by the

PW.1 in his cross examination. So whether the cheque is post dated cheque or ante date cheque it was not yet all issued by the accused to complainant and on perusal of the facts and circumstances of the entire case Ex.P1 cheque came into the hands of the complainant from his business partner

Rangaswamy reddy when on these likes the cross examination of PW.1 was elicited what prevented him not to examine his business partner

Rangaswamy reddy who had business dealings with accused also before the court to prove his case. But the complainant did not do so by bringing the evidence of Rangaswamy reddy before court on his behalf. As such there is no any legally enforceable debt between accused and complainant towards

Ex.P1 cheque amount. So the facts and circumstances of the authorities relied by the learned counsel for complainant or not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, it is made clear that the complainant failed to establish that he lent an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the accused under hand loan and the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque to discharge the said hand loan. Hence, point is answered in favour of the accused and against the complainant.

14. Point No.2 : Whether the Cheque has been presented to the Bank

within a period of 3 months from the date on which it was drawn or

within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier?

The accused issued Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant on 10.03.2019.

The Complainant/PW.1 presented Ex.P1 cheque for collection on 29.04.2019

C.C.No:1073/2019P a g e | 10 SM.NDL in Karnataka Bank Ltd. Nandyal. Therefore it is made clear that PW.1 presented the cheque within 3 months from the date of issuance of the cheque. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

15. Point No.3: Whether the Cheque was returned with an

endorsement ”Funds insufficient” or with any other reason from the

bank to the complainant.?

PW.1 presented Ex.P1 cheque in Karnataka Bank, Ltd, Nandyal branch on 29.04.2019 for collection and the same was dishonored on 30.04.2019 with an endorsement that “NO SUCH ACCOUNT”. The complainant received Ex.P3 cheque return memo dt:30.04.2019. In this connection Ex.P3 cheque return memo dt: 30.04.2019 was issued to the complainant by the bank. The accused did not disprove the Ex.P3 cheque return memo dt:30.04.2019.

A presumption U/sec 146 of N.I act can be drawn that the fact of dishonor of cheque with reason “NO SUCH ACCOUNT” as per the evidence of

PW.1 in Ex.P3 cheque return memo. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

16. Point No.4: Whether the Complainant demanded for payment of

the said amount by giving notice in writing to the accused within 30 days

of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return

of the Cheque as unpaid?

As per Ex.P3 cheque return memo dt: 30.04.2019 the complainant came to know the cheque, Ex.P1 cheque was dishonored on 30.04.2019. The complainant issued Ex.P4 legal notice to the accused on 14.05.2019. So the complainant issued legal notice with in 30 days from the date of receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque from the bank

C.C.No:1073/2019P a g e | 11 SM.NDL as unpaid. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

17.Point No.5: Whether the Accused fails to make the payment of the

said amount of money to the complainant, within 15 days of the receipt

of the said Notice?

The complainant sent Ex.P4 legal notice dt:14.05.2019 under Ex.P5 postal receipt dt: 20.05.2019. The accused did not receive the legal notice.

Hence it was returned under Ex.P6 returned postal cover with an endorsement dt: 17.06.2019 that “Addressee out of station”. Accused failed to pay the cheque amount. Therefore the complainant waited for 15 days and filed the complaint with in time in the court.

A presumption U/Sec 27 of general clause act and U/Sec 114 of Indian evidence act, can be drawn that the notice was deemed to be served to the accused. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

In view of the above said discussions, the complainant failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused U/Sec 138 of N.I Act and in turn the accused disproved the case of the complainant.

18. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is acquitted for the same under Section 255 [1] of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

Dictation to the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 19 th day of November, 2025.

sd/- M. Yesuratnam

Special Magistrate, Nandyal.

C.C.No:1073/2019P a g e | 12 SM.NDL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

PW.1 : B. Krishnaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Ex.P1 :The cheque bearing No.082402 for Rs.6,50,000/- dt: 10.04.2019.

Ex.P2 :The debt voucher of Karnatak Bank, Nandyal dt: 29.04.2019.

Ex.P3 :The cheque return memo dt: 30.04.2019.

Ex.P4 :The office copy of statutory legal notice dt: 14.05.2019.

Ex.P5:The postal receipt dt: 20.05.2019.

Ex.P6 :The returned postal cover with acknowledgment dt: 31.05.2019.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

- NiL -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

- NIL-

Sd/- M. Yesuratnam

S.M., NDL

C.C.No:1073/2019P a g e | 13 SM.NDL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPEICIAL MAGISTRATE:NANDYAL

C.C.No. 1073 of 2019

Date of offence29-04-2019

Date of report or Complaint17-06-2019

Date of apprehension of Accused---

Date of release on bail---

Date of commencement of trial01-05-2025

Date of close of trial04-11-2025

Date of sentence or Order19-11-2025

Explanation of delay &remarks---

Burra Krishnaiah, aged about 32 years, S/o Pedda Chowdanna, R/o H.No. 1-30, Complainant Venkatapuram Village and Post, Hamlet of Pandlapuram village, Banganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District. Kambampati Srinivas, aged about 50 years, S/o Madar, Seethya Thanda, Puchakayala Accused gudem, Thopucherla Village, Vemulapalli Mandal, Nalgonda Dist. OffenceDis-honour of cheque

Section of LawU/Sec.138 of N.I.Act

Finding of the CourtThe accused is found not guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is acquitted for the same under Section 255 [1] of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

Sd/- M. Yesuratnam

Special Magistrate, Nandyal.

C.C.No:2150/2019P a g e | 1 SM.NDL

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE : NANDYAL

Present:-Sri M. YESURATNAM, Special Magistrate, Nandyal

Dated this on Friday, the 31st day of OCTOBER, 2025

C.C.No.2150 of 2019

Challa Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Challa Madhu, aged about 32 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o H.No. 4-52, Palukur Village, Banaganapalli Mandal, present residing in SBI Colony, Nandyal town, Kurnool District.

….Complainant

- Versus -

Yadavalli Rajeshwari, W/o Poluru Nagarjunappa, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Govt. Teacher, R/o H.No. 4-756, Line No.36, SPY Reddy Model Colony, Near DSP Office, Bommalasatram, Nandyal town, Kurnool District.

….Accused

This Case came before me today i.e., on 31-10-2025 for final Hearing in the presence of Sri. D. Prathap reddy, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri. Thati reddy rama gopal reddy, Advocate for Accused upon the perusal of the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a private complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 138 R/W 142 of N.I Act 1881 as amended by act 66 of 1988 with the following allegations.

2.The complainant is native of Palukur Village, Banaganapalli Mandal and present residing in SBI colony, Nandyal, Kurnool District. The accused got acquaintance with the complainant through One Venkata Swami who is the relative of the complainant. Out of that acquaintance the accused and her husband approached the complainant on 03.03.2017 and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for their necessities and the accused and her husband namely Nagajunappa jointly executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant with an interest of 24% p.a. Again on 25.03.2019 the accused approached the complainant and borrowed an amount of

C.C.No:2150/2019P a g e | 2 SM.NDL

Rs.2,75,000/- for her necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant with an interest of 24%. Inspite of the demands made by the complainant towards re-payment of the said amounts, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 892208 dt:11.08.2019 for Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on State bank of India, Srinivasa Nagar branch, Nandyal towards discharge of the

principal amount of both the promissory notes on part of the interest and

assured that she would pay the remaining interest later. The accused issued a cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt.

3.The complainant presented the said cheque in her account No.

38650184122 at State bank of India, Bazar Branch, Nandyal on 17.08.2019 the same was returned to the complainant by her banker on the same date for the reason that “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”. Thereafter the complainant within 15 days from the date of information of the dishonor of the cheque she sent a registered legal notice to her counsel on 19.08.2019 intimating to the accused about the dishonor of the cheque. The accused received the said legal notice on 21.08.2019 and she got issued a reply notice through her advocates with false allegations and also with a request to furnish the xerox copies of the cheque and two promissory notes. Accordingly the xerox copies of the cheques and two promissory notes were furnished the counsel of the accused. But the accused did not choose to pay the amount to the complainant. The accused failed to make an payment within 15 days of grace period from the date of legal notice, and the complainant waited for 15 days period and filed this complaint within one month. Hence accused is liable for punishment U/Sec 138 of N.I Act.

4.When the accused appeared before court, copies of all the documents on which the complainant relied were supplied to her U/Sec 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.When the accused was examined U/Sec 251 of Cr.P.C by putting the

Substance of the accusations leveled against her, she denied the same pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the complainant Pws.1 and 2 examined and Ex.P1 to P8 are got marked. On behalf of the accused herself examined as DW.1 and no

C.C.No:2150/2019P a g e | 3 SM.NDL document was marked.

7.After closure of evidence on behalf of the complainant, the accused was called upon to explain the incrementing material appearing against her in the evidence of the PWs.1 and 2 U/Sec 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C for which she denied the same and stated that she never borrowed any amount from the complainant and she never saw the complainant.

8. Heard, the arguments from learned counsels on both sides. While advancing arguments the learned counsel for accused filed the citation which are reported in

1. 2024 AIR SUPREME COURT 2105

2. 2013 Crl.L.J. (BOMBAY) 1435 9. Now, the Point for consideration in this case is

“Whether the Complainant has proved the guilt of the Accused beyond all

reasonable doubt?

10.To prove the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act, the following ingredients are to be established.

i.Whether the Cheque has been issued by the Accused from her bank account maintained by her to discharge any debt or other liability?

ii.Whether the Cheque has been presented to the Bank within a period of 3 months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier?

iii.Whether the Cheque was returned with an endorsement ”Funds insufficient” or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank?

iv.Whether the Complainant demanded for payment of the said amount by giving notice in writing to the accused within 30 days of the receipt of information by her from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid?

v.Whether the Accused fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the complainant, within 15 days of the receipt of the said legal notice?

C.C.No:2150/2019P a g e | 4 SM.NDL

11. Point No.1:- Whether the Cheque has been issued by the Accused

from her bank account maintained by her to discharge any debt or other

liability?

a) The contention of the accused she being a government teacher she never borrowed any amount from the complainant/PW.1 and she never saw the complainant. The learned counsel for accused argued that the husband of the accused is working in Gelivi private hospital, Nandyal where the relative of PW.1 by name Venkata swami i.e., PW.2 also working in the said hospital, so through the PW.2 the husband of accused known to the PW.1. The accused/DW.1 being a educated person working as teacher she have no need to press into service by 3rd person scribed the promissory notes. The complainant/PW.1 is a woman of no means to lend such huge amount. She further argued that the husband of the accused and PW.2 who are close friends and working in Gelivi Private hospital, Nandyal, the husband of the accused Nagarjunappa is having all sorts of Bad habits like drinking, gambling e.t.c he is Vagabond, he is depend upon the salary of accused he is totally abandoned and ignored, get-rid the accused and family members, due to weakness of the husband of accused PW.2 some what managed the husband of accused and got prepared the alleged promissory notes which are marked as Ex.P7 and P8 and the subject cheque Ex.P1. Further the learned counsel for accused argued that PW.2 with the collusion of the husband of accused Nagarjunappa for their illegal activities, they created

Ex.P7 and P8 promissory notes by forging the signatures of the accused on promissory notes for easily recovery from her as she is working as a teacher.

PW.2 the close relative of PW.1 is behind the screen in preparation of Ex.P7 and P8 promissory notes and Ex.P1 cheque against the accused and filed the complaint through the complainant against the accused to extract the amount for their illegal activities. So the total contention of the accused that she did not execute Ex.P7 and P8 promissory notes along with her husband jointly in favour of the complainant and Ex.P1 cheque also not yet all issued by accused in favour of the complainant and those 3 documents have been created by PW.2 and the husband of accused and got filed the complaint through PW.1 against the accused for wrongful gain.

C.C.No:2150/2019P a g e | 5 SM.NDL

b) In this connection the rulings relied and filed by the learned counsel

for accused which are reported in,

1. 2024 AIR SUPREME COURT 2105

2. 2013 Crl.L.J. (BOMBAY) 1435.

c) Where in it was held that on perusal of the facts and circumstances of the said citations,

“The complainant failed to show that any sum was

advanced towards financial assistance”.

d) But in this case the complainant/PW.1 substantially proved that under Ex.P7 and P8 the cash amounts were advanced to the accused/DW.1 and in order to discharge the debts which are legally enforceable debts covered under Ex.P7 and P8. The accused has issued Ex.P1 cheque for

Rs.6,00,000/-.

e) In the another citation which was held that, “legally enforceable debt presumption U/Sec 139 of N.I Act in favour of holder of cheque is that a legally enforceable debt or liability exists”.

f) In this case the presumption U/Sec 138 of N.I Act safely infer in favour of the complainant since to discharge the legally enforceable debts covered under Ex.P7 and P8 promissory notes amounts the accused would have issued Ex.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant. The contention from accused side is that the signatures for accused/DW.1 were forged on Ex.P7 and P8 promissory notes and also on Ex.P1 cheque with the help of her husband by PW.2. If yet all the said contention is true and correct the accused side did not take any steps in order to ascertain the signatures of accused/DW.1 on Ex.P7, P8 and Ex.P1 are genuine and they are not belongs to accused. Even though after receiving the legal notice by the accused under

Ex.P3, the accused got sent reply notice under Ex.P4 where in the accused requested to supply/furnish the xerox copies of two promissory notes and cheque, Accordingly those three documents were supplied/furnished to the accused counsel under Ex.P5 reply notice. However the accused did not choose to send those 3 documents for expert opinion in order to ascertain whether the signatures of accused were forged on those documents by the

C.C.No:2150/2019P a g e | 6 SM.NDL complainant or not. If yet all the contention of the accused was real, the accused would have send Ex.P1, P7 and P8 for expert opinion but the accused did not do so and nothing was prevented her which implies that simply a false contention taken by the accused in order to evade the amount of the complainant under promissory notes and cheque.

g) The learned counsel for complainant/PW.1 argued that the accused/DW.1 got acquaintance with her through PW.2 who is her relative.

Out of that acquaintance the accused and her husband approached her on 03.03.2017 and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for their necessities and the accused and her husband jointly executed Ex.P7 promissory note to discharge the amount with interest at 24% p.a. the accused approached the complainant and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- for her necessities and executed a promissory note which is marked as Ex.P8 to discharge the amount with interest at 24% p.a.. Inspite of the demands made by the complainant the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque on 11.08.2019 for Rs.6,00,000/- in order to discharge the two promissory notes amount with partly interest.

Further the learned counsel for complainant argued that the accused simply denied that she never subscribed her signatures on Exs.P7, P8 promissory notes and Ex.P1 subject cheque and those documents were created by her

The learned counsel for complainant/PW.1 argued that the accused/DW.1 got acquaintance with her through PW.2 who is her relative. Out of that acquaintance the accused and her husband approached her on 03.03.2017 and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for their necessities and the accused and her husband jointly executed Ex.P7 promissory note to discharge the amount with interest at 24% p.a.

h) Again the accused approached the complainant and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- for her necessities and executed a promissory note which is marked as Ex.P8 to discharge the amount with interest at 24% p.a..

Inspite of the demands made by the complainant the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque on 11.08.2019 for Rs.6,00,000/- in order to discharge the two promissory notes amount with partly interest. Further the learned counsel

for complainant argued that the accused simply denied that she never

subscribed her signatures on Exs.P7, P8 promissory notes and Ex.P1 subject

C.C.No:2150/2019P a g e | 7 SM.NDL cheque and those documents were created by her husband with the help of

PW.2 in order to extract the amount from her where she has been working as a government teacher. When through her reply notice the accused sought the complainant to furnish the xerox copies of two promissory notes and cheque. Accordingly those three documents were furnished to accused through her counsel but the accused kept quite without initiating any steps to send those documents for expert opinion in order to ascertain her signatures. Whether she would have signed her somebody has forged. After considering the above said discussions it is made clear that accused issued

Ex.P1 cheque in order to discharge the legally enforceable debts covered under Ex.P7 and P8 promissory notes. Hence point is answered in favour of the complainant.

12. Point No.2 : Whether the Cheque has been presented to the Bank

within a period of 3 months from the date on which it was drawn or

within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier?

As per the evidence of PW.1 accused issued Ex.P1 cheque on 11.08.2019. The complainant/PW.1 presented Ex.P1 cheque in State Bank of

India, Bazar Branch, Nandyal for collection on 17.08.2019. Therefore it is made clear that PW.1 presented the Ex.P1 cheque within 3 months from the date of the cheque. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

13. Point No.3: Whether the Cheque was returned with an

endorsement “Funds insufficient” or it exceeds the amount arranged to

be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank?

PW.1 presented Ex.P1 in State Bank of India, Bazar Branch, Nandyal on 17.08.2019 for collection and the same was dishonored on 17.08.2019 with an endorsement that “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” in the account of the accused. The complainant received Ex.P2 cheque return memo dt:17.08.2019. The same was issued to the complainant by the bank. The accused did not disprove the

Ex.P2 cheque return memo dt:17.08.2019. A presumption U/Sec 146 of N.I Act can be drawn the fact of dishonor of cheque with reason “FUNDS

INSUFFICIENT” as per cheque return memo. Hence this point is answered in

C.C.No:2150/2019P a g e | 8 SM.NDL favour of the complainant.

14. Point No.4: Whether the Complainant demanded for payment of

the said amount by giving notice in writing to the accused within 30 days

of the receipt of information by her from the bank regarding the return

of the cheque as unpaid?

As per Ex.P2 cheque return memo dt: 17.08.2019. The complainant came to know the cheque was dishonored on 17.08.2019 the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 19.08.2019. So the complainant issued legal notice with in 30 days from the date of receipt of the information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque from the bank as unpaid. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

15. Point No.5: Whether the Accused fails to make the payment of the

said amount of money to the complainant, within 15 days of the receipt

of the said legal notice?

The complainant/PW.1 got sent Ex.P3 legal notice on 19.08.2019. After receive of the notice the accused/DW.1 got issued a reply notice under Ex.P4

dt:27.08.2019 but accused failed to pay the cheque amount to the

complainant. The complainant waited for 15 days and filed the complaint within time in the court. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

In view of the above said discussions, the complainant proved her case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused U/Sec 138 of N.I Act.

16. In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and she is Convicted for the same U/Sec 255 (2) Cr.P.C.

Quantum of Sentence:

Accused appeared before the court. When the accused questioned about the quantum of sentence she stated that she is working as a government teacher and her family members are depending upon her and

C.C.No:2150/2019P a g e | 9 SM.NDL prays to take a lenient view. After considering the facts of the case and the submission of the accused, it is a fit case to take lenient view to impose sentence against the accused. Hence, accused is convicted U/Sec 255 (2) of

Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec 138 of N.I Act and she is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of the payment of the fine she shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Besides that the accused is directed to pay Ex.P1 the cheque amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation U/Sec 357 (3) of Cr.P.C to the Complainant/PW.1 within one month from the date of the judgment. In default of the compensation amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Accused is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the judgment.

Dictation to the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31 th day of October, 2025.

Special Magistrate, Nandyal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

PW.1 : Challa Vijaya Lakshmi, PW.2 : B. Venkata Swamy,

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Ex.P1 : The cheque bearing No. 892208 for Rs.6,00,000/- dt: 11.08.2019. Ex.P2 : The cheque return memo dt: 17.08.2019 issued by SBI, Bazar Branch, Nandyal. Ex.P3 : The office copy of legal notice dt: 19.08.2019. Ex.P4 : The reply notice issued by the counsel for accused dt: 27.08.2019. Ex.P5 : The office copy of reply to the reply notice of the accused dt: 04.09.2019. Ex.P6 : The acknowledgment card served on the counsel of the accused

dt:04.09.2019.

Ex.P7 :The Original promissory note dt:03.03.2017 jointly executed by the accused and her husband in favour of complainant for Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.P8 : The Promissory note dt:25.03.2019 executed by the accused in favour of complainant for Rs.2,75,000/-.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

DW.1: Yadavalli Rajeswari

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

-NIL -

C.C.No:2150/2019P a g e | 10 SM.NDL

S.M., NDL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: NANDYAL

C.C.No. 2150 of 2019

Date of offence11-08-2019

Date of report or Complaint12-09-2019

Date of apprehension of Accused---

Date of release on bail---

Date of commencement of trial11-02-2025

Date of close of trial08-10-2025

Date of sentence or Order31-10-2025

Explanation of delay &remarks---

Challa Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Challa Madhu, aged about 32 years, Hindu, Housewife, Complainant R/o H.No. 4-52, Palukur Village, Banaganapalli Mandal, present residing in SBI Colony, Nandyal town, Kurnool District. Yadavalli Rajeshwari, W/o Poluru Nagarjunappa, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Accused Govt. Teacher, R/o H.No. 4-756, Line No.36, SPY Reddy Model Colony, Near DSP Office, Bommalasatram, Nandyal town, Kurnool District. OffenceDis-honour of cheque

Section of LawU/Sec.138 of N.I.Act

Finding of the CourtThe Accused is found guilty.

Sentence or OrderIn the result, The Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and she is Convicted for the same U/Sec 255 (2) Cr.P.C.

Special Magistrate, Nandyal.

C.C.No:1065/2021P a g e | 1 SM.NDL

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE : NANDYAL

Present:-Sri M. YESURATNAM, Special Magistrate, Nandyal

Dated this on Thursday, the 13th day of NOVEMBER, 2025

C.C.No.1065 of 2021

Kurakula Lakshmi Devi, aged about 59 years, W/o Kurakula Venkata Swamy, Hindu, House wife, R/o H.No. 14/96, Neeli Street, Nandyal.

….Complainant

- Versus -

Bangaru Venkata Mahesh Kumar, aged about 38 years, S/o B. Gopal, Employee in SRBC, Division-I, Banaganapalli Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

….Accused

This Case came before me today i.e., on 13-11-2025 for final Hearing in the presence of Sri. V. Rama Chandra Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri. K.V.

Pavan Kumar, Advocate for Accused upon the perusal of the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed on behalf of the complainant U/Sec 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence Punishable U/Sec 138 R/w 142 of N.I Act, with the following allegations.

2.The complainant is resident of H.No. 14/95 Neeli Street, Nandyal. The accused is an employee in SRBC Division -I Banganapalli Village and Mandal,

Kurnool District that the accused borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from complainant on 05.03.2021 for his necessities and agreed to repay the same by 19.03.2021.

The debt is oral one. The accused issued a cheque bearing no. 805785

dt: 05.03.2021 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Koilakuntla on

05.03.2021 towards the discharge of above said debt. As per the instructions of accused, complainant submitted the said cheque in Bank of Baroda,

Nandyal on 19.03.2021 but the same was returned for the reason (Payment stopped by the drawer) on 20.03.2021. The complainant caused legal notice

C.C.No:1065/2021P a g e | 2 SM.NDL bearing R.N. 20/21 dt: 01.04.2021 to the accused residential and employment address, bringing all the above facts to his notice and demanded him to pay the cheque amount, the notice sent to the accused under registered post, ordinary post and courier services were returned, the notice sent to the employment towards by R.P with acknowledgment due was served upon him on 06.04.2021. The accused is excepted to pay the cheque amount on or

before 21.04.2021 but neither he paid any amount nor gave any reply to the

complainant. As such the complainant waited for 15 days after issuance of the notice and filed this complaint within one month. Hence accused is liable for punishment U/Sec 138 of N.I Act.

3.When the accused appeared before court, copies of all the documents on which the complainant relied were supplied to him U/Sec 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.When the accused was examined U/Sec 251 of Cr.P.C by putting the

Substance of the accusations leveled against him, he denied the same pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the complainant Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P1 to

P11 are got marked.

6.After closure of evidence on behalf of the complainant, the accused was called upon to explain the incrementing material appearing against him in the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 U/Sec 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C for which he denied the same and reported no evidence on accused side.

7. Heard, the arguments from the learned counsels on both sides. While advancing arguments the learned counsels on either side relied and filed the citations.

8. Now, the Point for consideration in this case is

“Whether the Complainant has proved the guilt of the Accused beyond all

reasonable doubt?

9.To prove the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act, the following ingredients are to be established.

C.C.No:1065/2021P a g e | 3 SM.NDL i.Whether the Cheque has been issued by the Accused from the bank account maintained by her to discharge any debt or other liability?

ii.Whether the Cheque has been presented to the Bank within a period of 3 months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier?

iii.Whether the Cheque was returned with an endorsement ”Funds insufficient” or payment stopped by drawer or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid by an agreement made with that bank or payment stopped by the drawer?

iv.Whether the Complainant demanded for payment of the said amounts by giving notice in writing to the accused within 30 days of the receipt of information by her from the bank regarding the return of the Cheque as unpaid?

v.Whether the Accused fails to make the payment of the said amount to the complainant, within 15 days of the receipt of the said legal notice?

10. Point No.1:- Whether the Cheque has been issued by the Accused

from his bank account maintained by her to discharge any debt or other

liability?

a)The advocate for accused argued that in the year 2013 the accused issued empty cheques to the complainant/PW.1 and other family members of the PW.1 towards the security purpose on account of the money transactions between accused and the family members of the PW.1. He further argued that taking the advantage of empty cheques of accused PW.1 and her husband and also her son misused the cheques belongs to the accused which were issued by him towards security purpose after obtaining the money from them. So the contention of the accused side is the subject cheque Ex.P1 not yet all issued by the accused in the year 2021 as stated by the complainant in that connection the learned counsel put questions in the cross examination of PW.1 and those questions were denied by the PW.1 apart from that the learned counsel for accused argued that no scrap of paper obtained by the complainant from the accused to show that on 05.03.2021 the complainant advanced the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused. Further he argued that in this case the statutory legal notice contemplated U/Sec 138 of N.I Act not yet all served on the accused to support the contentions on accused side.

C.C.No:1065/2021P a g e | 4 SM.NDL

b) The learned counsel filed the rulings which are reported in,

1) 2020 (2) SCC (Crl) 450

2) 2011 AIR (SC) (Crl) 2089

3) 2007 (2) ALD (Crl) 420

4) 2017 Supreme (SC) 1792

c) Where in it was held that,

The service of the statutory legal notice is

a necessary pre-condition for filing a complaint

U/Sec 138 of N.I Act and the omission of the

complainant in not prosecuting the complaint

properly could not be ignored.

The court held that the service of the

statutory legal notice calling upon the drawer of

the cheque to pay the amount of the cheque is a

necessary pre-condition for filing a complaint

U/Sec 138 of N.I Act.

d) In the authority reported in 2007 Supreme court (AP) 608

Once accused discharges the initial burden

placed on him, the burden of proof would revert

back to the complainant. For rebutting

presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of N.I

Act, what is needed is to raise a probable

defense – Even for said purpose evidence adduced

on behalf of complainant could be relied upon and

standard of proof evidently is preponderance of

probabilities.

e) In view of the above said citations the accused herein could not produce any evidence by way of rebuttal evidence the presumption U/Sec 118 and 139 of N.I Act the initial burden lies on the complainant to prove the case of the complainant against the accused. The accused without producing any rebuttal evidence simply from the accused side argued that in the year 2013 the accused handed over the empty cheques belongs to him to the complainant and her husband and son towards the security purpose for the amounts borrowed by him from them. With regard to the statutory legal notice contemplates U/Sec 138 of N.I Act is mandatory to send to the accused after the cheque was dishonored. As seen from the evidence of complainant/PW.1 on 05.03.2021 the accused borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- for his necessities agreeing to repay the same by 19.03.2021. Accordingly on 05.03.2021 the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque to present and draw the amount from his account branch i.e., State bank of India, Koilakuntla branch. As per the instructions of the accused complainant presented Ex.P1 cheque on

C.C.No:1065/2021P a g e | 5 SM.NDL 19.03.2021 in her bank account i.e., Bank of Baroda, Nandyal branch but unfortunately the cheque was not honored and returned the same on the reason payment stopped by drawer.

f) The learned counsel for complainant argued that as a token of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which was borrowed by accused on 05.03.2021 he issued on the same day Ex.P1 cheque assuring to draw the amount from his account on presentation of cheque on 19.03.2021 so there is no hard and fast rule to obtain any slip or pronote or scrap of paper as a token of the amount from the accused as contended by the learned counsel for accused. The learned counsel for complainant further argued that the statutory legal notice covered U/Sec 138 of N.I Act sent to the accused residential and employment address, bringing all the facts of presentation and dishonor of the cheque, the legal notice sent to the accused employment address was served. However the accused could not act upon it by way of paying the cheque amount or sending any reply notice. As per the section 4 of general clauses act the statutory legal notice sent by the complainant to the accused correct addresses of his residential and employment place is deemed to be served on the accused. He further argued that from the accused side there is no denial of his residential address and employment address which are furnished by the complainant against the accused. From the accused side wantedly saying that the statutory legal notice not received by the accused.

g) Apart from the oral arguments by the learned counsel for complainant filed the rulings which are reported in,

1) 2019 2 ALD (Crl) SC 767.

2) 2010 (3) Crimes 40 (SC).

3) 1985 0 CrLJ 493.

Stating that Section 139 – Presumption – A

presumption of law, as distinguished from

presumption of facts – Rebuttable – Obligatory on

the court to raise this presumption – Onus of

proving that the cheque was not in discharge of

any debt or other liability is on the accused

drawer of the cheque.

C.C.No:1065/2021P a g e | 6 SM.NDL

As per Sections 20,87 and 139 – A person

signing a cheque and making it over to payee –

Remains liable unless the presumption U/Sec 139

is rebutted by adducing evidence – The cheque

having been filed by anybody else than the drawer

is immaterial if duly signed by the drawer.

h) In this case from the accused side it was argued that only empty cheque was issued by the accused to the complainant towards the security purpose in the year 2013 but that burden is not yet all proved by the accused by adducing any rebuttal evidence that the signatures appears on Ex.P1 cheque not belongs to him and the blanks filled on Ex.P1 cheque not concern to him. So the facts and circumstances of the rulings relied and filed by the accused side are not yet all applicable to the accused side were the accused utterly failed to produce any rebuttal evidence to disprove the case of the complainant.

i) On other hand the facts and circumstances of the rulings which are relied and filed by the learned counsel for complainant are substantially applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case in favour of the complainant because as admitted by the accused side the money transactions were held between accused and complainant and the issuing of the cheque by the accused to the complainant is not denied but the contention of the accused that the cheque was issued towards the security purpose. However such a contention was not yet all proved by the accused by producing any evidence before court. The evidence of PW.1 substantially supporting by the evidence of PW.2 who said have been introduced the accused to PW.1 to give the amount under debt. As per the version of Pw.2 in her presence the accused borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- on 05.03.2021 from PW.1 and to discharge the same he issued Ex.P1 cheque on the same day but the cheque was not

honored. After considering the above said discussions it is made clear that

there is existence of borrowing of Rs.3,00,000/- by the accused from complainant in the presence of PW.2 and the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque to discharge the said borrower amount. Hence point is answered in favour of the complainant.

C.C.No:1065/2021P a g e | 7 SM.NDL

11. Point No.2 : Whether the Cheque has been presented to the Bank

within a period of 3 months from the date on which it was drawn or

within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier?

The accused issued Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant on 05.03.2021.

The complainant/PW.1 presented Ex.P1 cheque in Bank of Baroda, Nandyal on 19.03.2021 for collection. Therefore it is made clear that PW.1 presented the cheque within 3 months from the date of the cheque. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

12. Point No.3: Whether the Cheque was returned with an

endorsement “Funds insufficient” or “Payment stopped by the drawer”

or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an

agreement made with that bank?

Complainant/PW.1 presented Ex.P1 cheque in Bank of Baroda, Nandyal branch, nandyal on 19.03.2021 for collection and the same was dishonored on 20.03.2021 with an endorsement that “PAYMENT STOPPED BY DRAWER” in the account of the accused. The complainant received Ex.P3 cheque return memo dt: 20.03.2021. Ex.P2 is a counter foil dt: 19.03.2021 under which the cheque was presented. The accused did not disprove the Ex.P3 cheque return memo dt: 20.03.2021. A presumption U/Sec 146 of N.I Act can be drawn the fact of dishonor of cheque with reason “PAYMENT STOPPED BY DRAWER” as per cheque return memo. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

13. Point No.4: Whether the Complainant demanded for payment of

the said amount by giving notice in writing to the accused within 30 days

of the receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of the

Cheque as unpaid?

As per Ex.P3 cheque return memo dt: 20.03.2021. The complainant came to know the cheque was dishonored on 20.03.2021. The complainant issued statutory legal notice to the accused on 01.04.2021 to his residential and employment address bringing all the facts and demanding the accused to pay the cheque amount. Ex.P4 is the office copy of legal notice dt:

01.04.2021, Ex.P5 to P8 are postal and courier receipts, Ex.P9 is the postal

C.C.No:1065/2021P a g e | 8 SM.NDL acknowledgment, Ex.P10 and P11 are returned ordinary and registered postal envelopes covered with copies of legal notices. So the complainant issued legal notice within 30 days from the date of receipt of the information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque from the bank as unpaid.

Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

14. Point No.5: Whether the Accused fails to make the payment of the

said amount of money to the complainant, within 15 days of the receipt

of the said legal notice?

The complainant/PW.1 sent Ex.P4 legal notice on 01.04.2021 to the residential and employment address of the accused those addresses are not denied by the accused. The complainant waited for 15 days after issuing of the notice to the accused and filed the complaint within time in the court.

Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

In view of the above said discussions the complainant proved her case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused U/Sec 138 of N.I Act.

15. In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is Convicted for the same U/Sec 255 (2) Cr.P.C.

Quantum of Sentence:

Accused appeared before the court. When the accused questioned about the quantum of sentence he stated that he is the only bread winner of his family and the entire family is depending upon him and prays to take a lenient view. After considering the facts of the case and the submission of the accused, it is a fit case to take lenient view to impose sentence against the accused. Hence, accused is convicted U/Sec 255 (2) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec 138 of N.I Act and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of the payment of the fine he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Besides that the accused is directed to pay Ex.P1 the cheque amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation U/Sec 357 (3) of Cr.P.C

C.C.No:1065/2021P a g e | 9 SM.NDL to the Complainant/PW.1 within one month from the date of the judgment. In default of the compensation amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Accused is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the judgment.

Dictation to the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 13 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/- M. Yesuratnam

Special Magistrate, Nandyal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

PW.1 : K. Lakshmi Devi

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Ex.P1 : The counter foil dt: 17.03.2021. Ex.P2 : The cheque bearing NO. 805781 for Rs.2,30,000/- issued by the accused in favour of complainant dt: 05.03.2021. Ex.P3 : The cheque return memo dt: 17.03.2021 Ex.P4 : The office copy of legal notice dt: 01.04.2021. Ex.P5 : The postal receipt dt: 01.04.2021. Ex.P6 : The postal receipt dt: 01.04.2021. Ex.P7 : The courier receipt dt: 01.04.2021. Ex.P8 : The courier receipt dt: 01.04.2021. Ex.P9 : The postal acknowledgment which is tied with the returned postal envelope cover. Ex.P10: The returned postal envelope. Ex.P11 : The returned registered postal envelope.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

-Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

-NIL -

Sd/- M. Yesuratnam

S.M., NDL.

C.C.No:1065/2021P a g e | 10 SM.NDL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: NANDYAL

C.C.No. 1065 of 2021

Date of offence05-03-2021

Date of report or Complaint17.06.2021

Date of apprehension of Accused---

Date of release on bail---

Date of commencement of trial25-03-2025

Date of close of trial24-09-2025

Date of sentence or Order13-11-2025

Explanation of delay &remarks---

Kurakula Lakshmi Devi, aged about 59 years, W/o Kurakula Venkata Swamy, Hindu, Complainant House wife, R/o H.No. 14/96, Neeli Street, Nandyal. Bangaru Venkata Mahesh Kumar, aged about 38 years, S/o B. Gopal, Employee in Accused SRBC, Division-I, Banaganapalli Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. OffenceDis-honour of cheque

Section of LawU/Sec.138 of N.I.Act

Finding of the CourtThe Accused is found guilty.

Sentence or OrderIn the result, The Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is Convicted for the same U/Sec 255 (2) Cr.P.C.

Sd/- M. Yesuratnam.

Special Magistrate, Nandyal.

C.C.No:1066/2021P a g e | 1 SM.NDL

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE : NANDYAL

Present:-Sri M. YESURATNAM, Special Magistrate, Nandyal

Dated this on Thursday, the 13th day of NOVEMBER, 2025

C.C.No.1066 of 2021

Kurakula Venkata Swamy, aged about 68 years, S/o late Kurakula Naganna, Hindu, Retired RTC Employee, R/o H.No. 14/95, Neeli Street, Nandyal.

….Complainant

- Versus -

Bangaru Venkata Mahesh Kumar, aged about 38 years, S/o B. Gopal, Employee in SRBC, Division-I, Banaganapalli Village and mandal, Kurnool District.

….Accused

This Case came before me today i.e., on 13-11-2025 for final Hearing in the presence of Sri. V. Rama Chandra Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri. K.V.

Pavan Kumar, Advocate for Accused upon the perusal of the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed on behalf of the complainant U/Sec 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence Punishable U/Sec 138 R/w 142 of N.I Act, with the following allegations.

2.That the accused borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant on 04.07.2015 for his necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant at Nandyal town and agreed to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the complainant or his order. Accused paid Rs.1000/- on 01.05.2018 towards part payment and endorsed the same on the back side of the promissory note. Later accused did not choose to repay even part payments. The complainant has been demanding the accused to discharge the above said debt, the accused issued cheque bearing no. 805781 dt:

05.03.2021 for Rs.2,30,000/- drawn on State bank of India, Koilakuntla

Branch, towards discharge of the above said debt. As per the instructions of

C.C.No:1066/2021P a g e | 2 SM.NDL the accused the complainant submitted the cheque in State bank of India,

Nandyal branch on 17.03.2021 and the same was returned for the reason “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”. The complainant caused legal notice bearing R.No.

21/2021 dt: 01.04.2021 to the accused bringing all the above facts to his notice and demanding him to pay the cheque amount, the notice sent to employment address of accused by registered post with acknowledgment due was served upon him on 06.04.2021 but neither the accused paid the amount nor gave reply, the complainant waited for 15 days after issuance of the notice and filed this complaint within one month. Hence, the accused is liable for punishment U/Sec 138 of N.I Act.

3.When the accused appeared before the court, copies of all the documents on which the complainant relied were supplied to him U/Sec 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.When the accused was examined U/Sec 251 of Cr.P.C by putting the

Substance of the accusations leveled against him, he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the complainant Pw.1 is examined and Ex.P1 to P11 are got marked.

6.After closure of evidence on behalf of the complainant, the accused was called upon to explain the incrementing material appearing against him in the evidence of the Pw.1 U/Sec 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C for which he denied the same and reported no evidence on accused side.

7. Heard, the arguments from learned counsels on both sides. While advancing arguments the learned counsels on either side relied and filed the citations.

8. Now, the Point for consideration in this case is

“Whether the Complainant has proved the guilt of the Accused beyond all

reasonable doubt?

C.C.No:1066/2021P a g e | 3 SM.NDL 9.To prove the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act, the following ingredients are to be established.

i.Whether the Cheque has been issued by the Accused from the bank account maintained by him to discharge any debt or other liability?

ii.Whether the Cheque has been presented to the Bank within a period of 3 months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier?

iii.Whether the Cheque was returned with an endorsement ”Funds insufficient” or payment stopped by drawer or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid by an agreement made with that bank or payment stopped by the drawer?

iv.Whether the Complainant demanded for payment of the said amounts by giving notice in writing to the accused within 30 days of the receipt of information by her from the bank regarding the return of the Cheque as unpaid?

v.Whether the Accused fails to make the payment of the said amount to the complainant, within 15 days of the receipt of the said legal notice?

10. Point No.1:- Whether the Cheque has been issued by the Accused

from his bank account maintained by him to discharge any debt or other

liability?

a)The advocate for accused argued that in the year 2013 the accused issued empty cheques to the complainant/PW.1 and other family members of the PW.1 towards security purpose on account of the money transactions between accused and the family members of the PW.1. He further argued that taking the advantage of empty cheques of accused PW.1, his wife and son misused the cheques belongs to the accused which were issued by him towards security purpose after obtaining the money from them. So the contention of the accused side is the subject cheque Ex.P2 not yet all issued by the accused in the year 2021 as stated by the complainant in that connection the learned counsel put questions in the cross examination of PW.1 and those questions were denied by the PW.1 apart from that the learned counsel for accused argued that no scrap of paper obtained by the complainant from the accused to show that on 04.07.2015 the complainant advanced the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused. Further he argued that in this case the statutory legal notice contemplated U/Sec 138 of N.I Act not yet all served on the accused to support the contentions on accused side.

C.C.No:1066/2021P a g e | 4 SM.NDL

b) The learned counsel filed the rulings which are reported in,

1) 2020 (2) SCC (Crl) 450

2) 2011 AIR (SC) (Crl) 2089

3) 2007 (2) ALD (Crl) 420

4) 2017 Supreme (SC) 1792

c) Where in it was held that,

The service of statutory legal notice is a

necessary Pre-condition for filing a complaint

U/Sec 138 of N.I Act and the omission of the

complainant in not prosecuting the complaint

properly could not be ignored.

The court held that the service of the

statutory legal notice calling upon the drawer of

the cheque to pay the amount of the cheque is a

necessary Pre-condition for filing a complaint

U/Sec 138 of N.I Act.

d) In the authority reported in,

2007 Supreme court (AP) 608

Once accused discharges the initial burden

placed on him, the burden of proof would revert

back to the complainant. For rebutting

presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of N.I

Act, what is needed is to raise a probable

defense – Even for said purpose evidence adduced

on behalf of complainant could be relied upon and

standard of proof evidently is preponderance of

probabilities.

e) In view of the above said citations the accused herein could not produce any evidence by way of rebuttal evidence the presumption U/Sec 118 and 139 of N.I Act the initial burden lies on the complainant to prove the case of the complainant against the accused. The accused without producing any rebuttal evidence simply from the accused side argued that in the year 2013 the accused handed over the empty cheques belongs to him to the complainant and his wife and son towards the security purpose for the amounts borrowed by him from them. With regard to the statutory legal notice contemplates U/Sec 138 of N.I Act is mandatory to send to the accused after cheque was dishonored. As seen from the evidence of complainant/PW.1 on 04.07.2015 the accused borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant for his necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to him or his order. The accused paid Rs.1,000/- on 01.05.2018 towards part

C.C.No:1066/2021P a g e | 5 SM.NDL payment and endorsed the same on the back side of promissory note. Later accused did not choose to repay even part payments. When the complainant demanded the accused to discharge the above said debt issued Ex.P2 cheque

dt: 05.03.2021 for Rs.2,30,000/- drawn on State bank of India, Koilakuntla

Branch towards discharge of the debt covered under promissory note. As per the instructions of the accused the complainant presented Ex.P2 cheque on 17.03.2021 in State bank of India, Koilakuntla branch, but the same was returned for the reason “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”. In the cross examination of

PW.1 he handed over the promissory note to his counsel as such the original of promissory note not filed before court.

f) The learned counsel for complainant further argued that the statutory legal notice covered U/Sec 138 of N.I Act sent to the accused residential and employment address, bringing all the facts of presentation and dishonor of the cheque, the legal notice sent to the accused employment address was served. However the accused could not act upon it by way of paying the cheque amount or sending any reply notice. As per the section 4 of general clauses act the statutory legal notice sent by the complainant to the accused correct addresses of his residential and employment place deemed to be served on the accused. He further argued that from the accused side there is no denial of his residential address and employment address which are furnished by the complainant against the accused. From the accused side wantedly saying that the statutory legal notice not received by the accused.

g) Apart from the oral arguments by the learned counsel for complainant filed the rulings which are reported in,

1) 2019 2 ALD (Crl) SC 767.

2) 2010 (3) Crimes 40 (SC).

3) 1985 0 CrLJ 493.

Stating that Section 139 – Presumption – A

presumption of law, as distinguished from

presumption of facts – Rebuttable – Obligatory on

the court to raise this presumption – Onus of

proving that the cheque was not in discharge of

any debt or other liability is on the accused

drawer of the cheque.

C.C.No:1066/2021P a g e | 6 SM.NDL

Sections 20,87 and 139 – A person signing a

cheque and making it over to payee – Remains

liable unless the presumption U/Sec 139 is

rebutted by adducing evidence – The cheque having

been filed by anybody else than the drawer is

immaterial if duly signed by the drawer.

h) In this case from the accused side it was argued that only empty cheque was issued by the accused to the complainant towards the security purpose in the year 2013 but that burden is not yet all proved by the accused by adducing an rebuttal evidence that the signatures appears on Ex.P2 cheque not belongs to him and the blanks filled on Ex.P2 cheque not concern to him. So the facts and circumstances of the rulings relied and filed by the accused side are not yet all applicable to the accused side were the accused utterly failed to produce an rebuttal evidence to disprove the case of the complainant.

i) On other hand the facts and circumstances of the rulings which are relied and filed by the learned counsel for complainant are substantially applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case in favour of the complainant because as admitted by the accused side the money transactions were held between accused and complainant and the issuing of the cheque by the accused to the complainant is not all denied but the contention of the accused that the cheque was issued towards the security purpose. However such a contention was not yet all proved by the accused by producing any evidence before court, the evidence of PW.1 substantially establishes with the documentary proof Ex.P2 cheque issued by the accused for the discharge of legal enforceable debt. It is made clear that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant and executed Ex.P2 cheque to discharge the said borrower amount. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

11. Point No.2 : Whether the Cheque has been presented to the Bank

within a period of 3 months from the date on which it was drawn or

within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier?

The accused issued Ex.P2 cheque to the complainant/PW.1 on 05.03.2021. The complainant/PW.1 presented Ex.P2 cheque in State bank of

C.C.No:1066/2021P a g e | 7 SM.NDL

India, Koilakuntla on 17.03.2021 for collection. Therefore it is made clear that

PW.1 presented the cheque within 3 months from the date of the cheque.

Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

12. Point No.3: Whether the Cheque was returned with an

endorsement “Funds insufficient” or payment stopped by the drawer or

exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an

agreement made with that bank?

The complainant/PW.1 presented Ex.P2 cheque in State bank of India,

Koilakuntla, Nandyal on 17.03.2021 for collection and the same was dishonored on 17.03.2021 with an endorsement that “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” in the account of the accused. The complainant received Ex.P3 cheque return memo dt: 17.03.2021. Ex.P1 is a counter foil dt: 17.03.2021 under which the cheque was presented. The accused did not disprove the Ex.P3 cheque return memo dt: 17.03.2021. A presumption U/Sec 146 of N.I Act can be drawn the fact of dishonor of cheque with reason “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” as per cheque return memo. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

13. Point No.4: Whether the Complainant demanded for payment of

the said amount by giving notice in writing to the accused within 30 days

of the receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of the

Cheque as unpaid?

As per Ex.P3 cheque return memo dt: 17.03.2021. The complainant issued statutory legal notice to the accused on 01.04.2021 to his residential and employment address bringing all the facts and demanding the accused to pay the cheque amount. Ex.P4 is the office copy of legal notice dt:

01.04.2021, Ex.P5 to P8 are postal receipts and courier receipts, Ex.P9 is the postal acknowledgment, Ex.P10 and P11 are returned ordinary and registered postal envelopes covered with copies of legal notices. So the complainant issued legal notice within 30 days from the date of receipt of the information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque from the bank as unpaid. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

C.C.No:1066/2021P a g e | 8 SM.NDL

14. Point No.5: Whether the Accused fails to make the payment of the

said amount of money to the complainant, within 15 days of the receipt

of the said legal notice?

The complainant/PW.1 sent Ex.P4 legal notice on 01.04.2021 to the residential and employment address of the accused those addresses are not denied by the accused. The complainant waited for 15 days after issuing of the notice to the accused and filed the complaint within time in the court.

Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

In view of the above said discussions the complainant proved her case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused U/Sec 138 of N.I Act.

15. In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is Convicted for the same U/Sec 255 (2) Cr.P.C.

Quantum of Sentence :

Accused appeared before the court. When the accused questioned about the quantum of sentence he stated that he is the only bread winner of his family and the entire family is depending upon him and prays to take a lenient view. After considering the facts of the case and the submission of the accused, it is a fit case to take lenient view to impose sentence against the accused. Hence, accused is convicted U/Sec 255 (2) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec 138 of N.I Act and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of the payment of the fine he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Besides that the accused is directed to pay Ex.P2 the cheque amount of Rs.2,30,000/- towards compensation U/Sec 357 (3) of Cr.P.C to the Complainant/PW.1 within one month from the date of the judgment. In default of the compensation amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Accused is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the judgment.

Dictation to the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 13 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/- M. Yesuratnam

Special Magistrate, Nandyal.

C.C.No:1066/2021P a g e | 9 SM.NDL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

PW.1 : K. Venkataswamy

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Ex.P1 : The counter foil dt: 17.03.2021. Ex.P2 : The cheque bearing No. 805781 for Rs.2,30,000/- issued by the accused in favour of complainant dt: 05.03.2021. Ex.P3 : The cheque return memo dt: 17.03.2021 Ex.P4 : The office copy of legal notice dt: 01.04.2021. Ex.P5 : The postal receipt dt: 01.04.2021. Ex.P6 : The postal receipt dt: 01.04.2021. Ex.P7 : The courier receipt dt: 01.04.2021. Ex.P8 : The courier receipt dt: 01.04.2021. Ex.P9 : The postal acknowledgment which is tied with the returned postal envelope cover. Ex.P10: The returned postal envelope. Ex.P11 : The returned registered postal envelope.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

-Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

-NIL -

Sd/- M. Yesuratnam

S.M., NDL.

C.C.No:1066/2021P a g e | 10 SM.NDL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE:NANDYAL

C.C.No. 1066 of 2021

Date of offence17-03-2021

Date of report or Complaint17-06-2021

Date of apprehension of Accused---

Date of release on bail---

Date of commencement of trial25-03-2025

Date of close of trial03-10-2025

Date of sentence or Order13-11-2025

Explanation of delay &remarks---

Kurakula Venkata Swamy, aged about 68 years, S/o late Kurakula Naganna, Hindu, Complainant Retired RTC Employee, R/o H.No. 14/95, Neeli Street, Nandyal. Bangaru Venkata Mahesh Kumar, aged about 38 years, S/o B. Gopal, Employee in Accused SRBC, Division-I, Banaganapalli Village and mandal, Kurnool District. OffenceDis-honour of cheque

Section of LawU/Sec.138 of N.I.Act

Finding of the CourtThe Accused is found guilty.

Sentence or OrderIn the result, The Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is Convicted for the same U/Sec 255 (2) Cr.P.C.

Sd/- M. Yesuratnam.

Special Magistrate, Nandyal.

C.C.No:472/2019P a g e | 1 SM.NDL

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE : NANDYAL

Present:-Sri M. YESURATNAM, Special Magistrate, Nandyal

Dated this on Thursday, the 20th day of NOVEMBER, 2025

C.C.No.472 of 2019

Kommu Subash, S/o Subbarayudu, aged about 29 years, Hindu, R/o Pusulur Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. ….Complainant - Versus -

Singamsetty Raja Sekhar, S/o Sreeramulu, aged about 48 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Flat No. 503, Sri Sai Jyothi Apartment, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ….Accused

This Case came before me today i.e., on 20-11-2025 for final Hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Rama Krishna Advocate for the Complainant and Sri.

K. Chandramouli for Accused upon the perusal of the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a private complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence U/Sec 138 R/w 142 of N.I Act 1881 as amended by act 66/88 with the following allegations.

2.The complainant and accused have got acquaintance with each other in that connection in the month of July 2018 the accused approached the complainant and borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for his necessities as a hand loan with a condition to repay the same within 3 months. Inspite of the demands made by the complainant to discharge the said hand loan of

C.C.No:472/2019P a g e | 2 SM.NDL

Rs.3,00,000/- the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 004339 dt: 09.10.2018 drawn on Oriental bank of commerce, Nandyal. As per the instructions of the accused the complainant presented the said cheque in his account at SBI,

Bazar Branch, Nandyal and the same was returned to the complainant by his banker on 28.12.2018 with the reason that “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” in the account of the accused.

3.That the complainant within 15 days from the date of information of the dishonor of cheque sent a register legal notice through his counsel on 09.01.2019 intimating the accused about the dishonor of cheque, the register post acknowledgment, is not returned, the complainant tracked the postal cover over the official web site of Indian Postal Department, bearing site address as per the said print out of the net tracking the postal cover containing the legal notice was served on 11.01.2019. Neither responded to the notice nor repaid outstanding due to the complainant. As such the complainant waited for 15 days grace period and filed the complaint within the statutory period of limitation. Hence accused is liable for punishment

U/Sec 138 of N.I Act.

4.When the accused appeared before the court, copies of all the documents on which the complainant relied were supplied to him U/Sec 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.When the accused was examined U/Sec 251 of Cr.P.C by putting the

Substance of the accusations leveled against him, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C.No:472/2019P a g e | 3 SM.NDL

6.On behalf of the complainant, himself examined as PW.1 and got examined the Bank Manager as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4.

7.After closure of evidence on behalf of the complainant, the accused was called upon to explain the incrementing material evidence appearing against him in the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 U/Sec 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard, arguments from the learned counsels on both side.

9.Apart from oral arguments the learned counsel for accused relied and filed a citation which is reported in,

Crl. Rev. Pet.No. 865 of 2023 dt: 29.07.2025 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

with regard to the non service of statutory legal

notice covered under 138(b) on the accused.

10. Now, the Point for consideration in this case is,

11. “Whether the Complainant has proved the guilt of the Accused

beyond all reasonable doubt” or “The accused would have disproved

the case of the complainant against him” ?

12.To prove the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act, the following ingredients are to be established.

i.Whether the Cheque has been issued by the Accused from his bank account maintained by him to discharge any debt or other liability? ii.Whether the Cheque has been presented to the Bank within a period of 3 months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier? iiiWhether the Cheque was returned with an endorsement ”Funds insufficient” or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by any agreement made with that bank or ? iv.Whether the Complainant demanded for payment of the said amount by giving notice in writing to the accused within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the Cheque

C.C.No:472/2019P a g e | 4 SM.NDL as unpaid? v.Whether the Accused fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the complainant, within 15 days of the receipt of the said Notice?

13. Point No.1:-Whether the Cheque has been issued by the Accused

from his bank account maintained by hiPm to discharge any debt or

other liability?

a) The learned counsel for Complainant/PW.1 argued that on account of the close acquaintance between complainant and accused in the month of july 2018 the accused came to the complainant and obtain Rs.3,00,000/- for his necessities as a hand loan with a promise to repay the same within 3 months. When the accused could not repay the same as promised by him, on the demands made by the complainant the accused to discharge the said amount issued Ex.P1 cheque on 09.10.2018 in favour of the complainant assuring on presentation of the cheque the amount will be realized. So the debt between complainant and accused is a legally enforceable debt. Further the learned counsel argued that as per the instructions of accused the complainant presented Ex.P1 cheque in his bank account in State Bank of

India, Bazar Branch, Nandyal, but unfortunately the cheque was returned on 28.12.2018 for the reason that “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” in the account of the accused. The same was intimated to the complainant by Bankers with cheque return memo which is marked as Ex.P2 and return the cheque.

Subsequently the dishonor of the cheque was intimated to the accused by the complainant by way of statutory legal notice under Ex.P3 which was sent through RP with postal receipt Ex.P4 the said notice served on the accused through on 11.01.2019. However neither the accused never gave any reply

C.C.No:472/2019P a g e | 5 SM.NDL nor repaid the cheque amount to the complainant were the complainant is constrained to take legal action by filling this complaint U/Sec 138 of N.I Act against the accused. With regard to the presentation of Ex.P1 cheque and it’s dishonor and returned to the complainant along with cheque return memo by the bank is revealed from the evidence of PW.2 the bank manager.

b) The learned counsel for accused argued that between complainant and accused there is no any acquaintance and the accused never obtained/borrowed the so called sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant at any point of time and moreover the complainant has no such a capacity to lend such a huge amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused since the complainant not yet all having any source of income to accumulate such a huge amount in his possession. In the cross examination of PW.1 he categorically admitted that he did not got mentioned either in his complaint or his affidavit or in the legal notice about his occupation/job where he said that he work as a manager in exhibition to the joint wheel mission at

Punganuru and drawn Rs.30,000/- per month towards his salary. Apart from that PW.1 very categorically admitted in his cross examination that neither his complaint nor legal notice nor chief evidence affidavit discloses at what place and on which date the so called amount was advanced to the accused.

Further he admitted that he did not obtain any scrap of paper like a receipt or pronote as a token of the amount by the accused after advancing the so called amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.

c) The learned counsel for accused further argued that the complainant not filed any proof of accused address to which the legal notice was sent by the

C.C.No:472/2019P a g e | 6 SM.NDL complainant side. The complainant got sent the legal notice to the wrong address of the accused which is not yet all served on the accused which is mandatory to issue statutory legal notice covered under section 138 (b) of N.I

Act. If yet all the cheque would be dishonor. He further argued that since the complainant not yet all advanced the so called amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused as such he could not complied the statutory provisions of sending notice to the accused. Further the counsel argued that One K. Lakshmi Devi who has filed a Criminal case against the accused in the court and her husband Ramarao also filed a Criminal case against the accused they both known very well to the complainant.

d) The Complainant/PW.1 admitted in his cross examination that the son of

Lakshmi devi and Rama rao by name Lokesh is his friend. So the allegation of the accused side is that the said Lokesh misused the subject cheque which obtained from the accused in previous days and through the complainant got filed this complainant against the accused for wrongful gain. Whatever the arguments advanced by the learned counsel from the accused side the cross examination of the PW.1 clearly assuming the facts elicited from the mouth of PW.1 during his cross examination by the learned counsel for accused.

Therefore it is made clear that the complainant failed to establish that he lent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused and to discharge the said amount the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant. Hence, point is answered in favour of the accused and against the complainant.

14.Point No.2 :Whether the Cheque has been presented to the Bank

within a period of 3 months from the date on which it was drawn or

within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier?

C.C.No:472/2019P a g e | 7 SM.NDL

The accused issued Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant on 09.10.2018.

The complainant/PW.1 presented Ex.P1 cheque for collection on 28.12.2018 in State Bank of India, Bazar Branch, Nandyal. Therefore it is made clear that

PW.1 presented the cheque within 3 months from the date of issuance of the cheque. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

15.Point No.3:Whether the Cheque was returned with an endorsement

“Funds insufficient” or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from

that account by an agreement made with that bank?

PW.1 presented Ex.P1 cheque in State Bank of India, Bazar Branch,

Nandyal branch on 28.12.2018 for collection and the same was dishonored on the same day with an endorsement that “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”. The complainant received Ex.P2 cheque return memo dt:28.12.2018 from the bank. The accused did not disprove the Ex.P2 cheque return memo dt:

28.12.2018.

A presumption U/sec 146 of N.I act can be drawn that the fact of dishonor of cheque with reason “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” as per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and Ex.P3 cheque return memo. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

16.Point No.4: Whether the Complainant demanded for payment of

the said amount by giving notice in writing to the accused within 30 days

of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return

of the Cheque as unpaid?

As per Ex.P2 cheque return memo dt: 28.12.2018 the complainant

C.C.No:472/2019P a g e | 8 SM.NDL came to know the cheque, Ex.P2 cheque was dishonored on 28.12.2018. The complainant issued Ex.P3 legal notice to the accused on 09.01.2019. So the complainant issued legal notice with in 30 days from the date of receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque from the bank as unpaid. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

17.Point No.5: Whether the Accused fails to make the payment of the

said amount of money to the complainant, within 15 days of the receipt

of the said Notice?

The complainant sent Ex.P3 legal notice dt:09.01.2019 under Ex.P4 postal receipt. The accused received the said notice on 11.01.2019 but accused neither gave his reply notice nor paid the cheque amount. The complainant waited for 15 days and filed the complaint with in time in the court. Hence point is answered in favour of the complainant.

In view of the above said discussions, the complainant failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused U/Sec 138 of N.I Act.

18. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is acquitted for the same under Section 255 [1] of Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

Dictation to the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 20 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/- M. Yesuratnam

Special Magistrate, Nandyal.

C.C.No:472/2019P a g e | 9 SM.NDL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

PW.1 : K. Subash

PW.2 : K. Madhuri

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Ex.P1 :The cheque bearing No.004339 dt: 09.10.2018 for Rs.3,00,000/-

Ex.P2 :The cheque return memo issued by the SBI, Bazar Branch, Nandyal

dt: 28.12.2018.

Ex.P3 :The office copy of legal notice dt: 09.01.2019.

Ex.P4 :The postal receipt.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

- NiL -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

- NIL-

Sd/- M. Yesuratnam

S.M., NDL

C.C.No:472/2019P a g e | 10 SM.NDL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPEICIAL MAGISTRATE:NANDYAL

C.C.No. 472 of 2019

Date of offence28-12-2018

Date of report or Complaint05-02-2019

Date of apprehension of Accused---

Date of release on bail---

Date of commencement of trial05-03-2025

Date of close of trial22-10-2025

Date of sentence or Order20-11-2025

Explanation of delay &remarks---

Kommu Subash, S/o Subbarayudu, aged about 29 years, Hindu, R/o Pusulur Complainant Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. Singamsetty Raja Sekhar, S/o Sreeramulu, aged about 48 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Accused Flat No. 503, Sri Sai Jyothi Apartment, Nandyal, Kurnool District. OffenceDis-honour of cheque

Section of LawU/Sec.138 of N.I.Act

Finding of the CourtThe accused is found not guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is acquitted for the same under Section 255 [1] of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

Sd/- M. Yesuratnam

Special Magistrate, Nandyal.