Ms. Markal Poojitha

1 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BODHAN

Present :- Smt. Markal Poojitha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bodhan.

Dated this the 26 th day of September, 2025.

Calendar Case NO.191 of 2015

Between:

The State through Police, Police Station Bodhan Rural. Represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor. …Complainant AND

1. Pallempati Shiva Narayana, S/o. Venkata Krishnaiah, Age: 54 years, Occ: Agril, R/o. H. No.1-2-1055, Rakasipet, Bodhan

2. Kulakarni Umakanth, S/o. Vasanthrao, Age: 54 years, Occ: Agril, R/o. H.No.2- 40/3 Bhavanipet (v) Bodhan (m) (abated)

3. Magiri Vijay Kumar, S/o. Poshetty, Age: 45 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Bhavanipet (v) Bodhan (M).

...Accused no.1 to 3

This case was came before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor representing for the State/Complainant and Sri.T.Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for accused no.1 and Sri. V.R.Desai Advocate for accused no.3, upon perusal of record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The police Bodhan Rural filed a charge sheet in Crime No.169 of 2015 for the offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code (in short IPC).

JMFC, Bodhan 2 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

2.The case of the prosecution in brief are as follows:

[a] The complainant Sri Loka Srinivas Reddy working as Divisional cooperative officer Bodhan filed a petition on 24.05.2015 stating that the primary

Agricultural Co-Operative Society Limited(PACS) Bhavanipet was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act 1964. During the audit of

PACS Bhavanipet (Now Merged in PACS Sangem) for the year 2002-2003, it is found that an amount of Rs. 13,17,952/- misappropriated by the then President,

Secretary and Sales Man. The senior Inspector/ Auditor Sri. M.A. Waheed conducted audit under Section 50 of APCS Act 1964 and submitted a special report fixing the responsibility against 1) P. Shiva Narayana, Ex- President, 2) K.

Umakanth, Ex-Secretary, 3) M. Vijay Kumar Ex-Sales Man. Accordingly surcharge orders U/s 60(1) of APCS Act 1964 were passed by Deputy Registrar

Bodhan against the above persons by duly conducting the independent enquiry with the concerned persons for recovery of misappropriated amounts. The accused persons 1. P.ShivaNarayana Ex-President of PACS Bhavanipet misappropriated the sale proceeds of fertilizers Rs.50,000/-, 2. K.Umakanth Ex-

Secretary of PACS Bhavanipet misappropriated society funds Rs. 2,27,225/- 3.

M.Vijay Kumar Ex- Sales Man PACS Bhavanipet misappropriated the sale proceeds of Fertilizers Rs. 10,40,727-00 and the total misappropriated amount is

Rs 13,17,952-00.

JMFC, Bodhan 3 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

[b] On the basis of special report and surcharge orders, the then District

Collector Nizamabad issued proceeding by permitting the Divisional Co-

Operative officer Bodhan Under section 83(3) of APCS act 1964 read with G.O

Ms. No. 251 Agriculture & Co-Operation Department dated 07-10-2009 to launch prosecution under section 409 IPC for committing the criminal breach of trust.

Further the original records and original Documents were submitted at Hon'ble

Co-Operative Tribunal Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad camp court at Warangal for civil case in C.T. A. No. 3/10 and 5/10 on 21.04.2010. As such he submitted certified copies of some of the following documents before SHO Bodhan along with his written complaint for necessary action. 1) Special report submitted by the senior inspector/ Auditor comprising (15) pages and audit report for the year 2002-2003, 2) Surcharge Order U/s 60 (1) of APCS act 1964 of Deputy Registrar of Co-op Societies Bodhan RC. No. 898/2002-D, Dt: 30.04.2008, 3) Depositions recorded under independent enquiry on various dates comprising (16) pages. 4)

Set of cash books pages for year 2002-03 i.e from 27.04.2002 to 29.03.2003 comprising 52 pages in which the fraud was noticed. As per the orders of District

Collector Nizamabad the complainant lodged the petition before Station House

Officer Bodhan to register criminal case against the three Delinquents and launch prosecution in the court of law".

[c]Basing on the petition of complainant, the LW-23 registered a case in Cr.No.169/2015 U/s 406, 420, 468 R/W 34 IPC and took up the investigation by dispatching the Express FIR copies to all concerned authorities. During the JMFC, Bodhan 4 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

course of the investigation the LW-23 examined and recorded the statement of the LW-1/complainant. Later the LW-23 secured the presence of LWs 2 and LW3 who are the co-operative authorities of Nizamabad District and examined and recorded their detailed statements. Further the LW-23 proceeded to Bhavanipet village of Bodhan mandal and secured the presence of LWs 4 to 18 who are the farmers and having their membership in PACS Bhavanipet and whose names are falsely entered in the registers by the accused persons A1 to A3 and misappropriated their loan amounts. LW-23 examined and recorded their detailed statements [d]While efforts are in progress for the apprehension of the accused persons, on 12.06.2015 at 10.30a.m. after receiving credible information LW-23 along with cops rushed to the house of the A1 located at Rakasipet Bodhan and found that the A1 and A2 are assembled in his house. On that the LW-23 apprehended the A1 & A2 and interrogated them thoroughly. During interrogation they revealed their names and particulars and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence along with A3. As such LW-23 secured the presence of two mediators LWs 19 & 20 and in their presence he recorded confessional statements of A1 and A2 and recovered a Xerox copy of Receipt No. 86880

dated 17.10.2012 which exhibiting the repayment of misappropriated amount of

Rs.2,55,000/- by the A2 from his instance and possession before the same mediators. Later brought the A1 and A2 to Police Station at 12:00 hours and affected their arrest by duly issuing arrest memos and followed 50 Cr.P.C. JMFC, Bodhan 5 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

procedure and produced them before the Hon'ble JFCM Bodhan for their judicial custody.

[e]On 17.06.2015 at 07:30 hours the absconded accused A3 came to

Police Station and surrendered himself before LW-23. As such LW-23 interrogated him thoroughly. During interrogation he revealed his name and particulars and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence along with

A1 and A2. Later LW-23 secured the presence of two mediators LWs 21 and 22 and in their presence he recorded confessional statement of A3 and seized

Xerox copies of Receipt No. 30542 for Rs.35,000/- dated 26.3.2008 and Receipt

No.30543 for Rs.19,300/- Dated 27.3.2008 which exhibiting the repayment of some of misappropriated amounts by the A3 from his instance and possession

before the same mediators. Later LW-23 affected his arrest duly issuing arrest

memo at 9.30 hours and followed 50 Cr.P.C procedure and produced him before the Hon’ble JFCM Bodhan for his judicial custody. After completion of investigation filed the charge sheet for an offence under sections 406, 420, 468

R/W 34 IPC against the accused no.1 to 3.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 IPC against the accused no.1 to 3.After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused no.2 reported died and case against A2 is abated on 21.04.2022. The accused no.1 and 3 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C by explaining the

JMFC, Bodhan 6 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

substance of accusation in Telugu for the offence under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 IPC against the accused no.1 and 3 for which they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

4.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW18 and exhibits P1 to P24 and Ex.D1 are marked. The details of documents marked are mentioned in the appendix of evidence.

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused A1 and A3 are examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and explained incriminating evidence against them for which thee denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence the defence evidence was closed.

6.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

7.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubts”?

8. To avoid reputation of facts and evidence both the points shall be considered at once. To prove the case the prosecution has to establish the ingredients under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 IPC.

9. Evidence on Record.

JMFC, Bodhan 7 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

PW1/Complainant in his chief examination deposed that he worked as DNSO

Bodhan for the year February 2013 to September 2016 and the LW2 conducted audit for the year 2002-2003 and observed some financial irregularities and submitted a special report to DSO, Nizamabad and basing on the special report

PW2 conducted an enquiry by calling all the concerned persons by fixing liability on accused no.1 for Rs. 50,000/-, accused no.3 for Rs.10,40,000/- and one

Umakanath for Rs.2,27,000/- as they misappropriated the said amount. PW1 further deposed that in the year 2010 the district collector issued a proceeding basing on the report of PW2. He later lodged a police complaint against A1 to A3 basing on the order of District Collector in the year 2015.

10.PW1 in his cross examination admitted that there is five year delay in lodging the complaint and the same is not explained in this complaint. PW1 admitted that he did not verified the signatures of A3 on the documents filed by him and further stated he do not know whether his superior officers suppressed the report filed under section 51 of Cooperative societies Act and lodged the complaint against A3. PW1 deposed that A3 preferred an appeal against the surcharge order Ex.P3 and the said order was set aside by corporative tribunal.

PW1 deposed that he do not know whether the proceedings by District Collector is filed before this court.

11.PW2 in his chief examination deposed that he worked as DLCO Bodhan from 2007-2012 where the LW2 submitted a special report to DCAO for the order JMFC, Bodhan 8 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

of the year 2002-2003 regarding a misappropriation committed by accused no.1 to 3 but he do not know the amount misappropriated by A1 to A3. Basing on the report of LW2 he issued show cause notice to A1 to A3 where A1 send a explanation with a show cause notice, but A2 and A3 did not sent any explanation. Later he sent summons to A1 to A3 for conducting enquiry. PW2 after conducting the enquiry issued a surcharge order against A1 to A3. PW2 in his cross examination admitted that on enquiry with the farmer they gave statement that A1 has not misappropriated any amount and he do not know as per his enquiry A1 has not committed any misappropriation of amount. PW2 admitted that as per the report of one Gangaram which is conducted under section 51 enquiry i.e., Ex.P4 A1 has not committed any misappropriation of amounts. PW2 further admitted that he has not collected any document regarding the employment, appointment and work entrusted to accused no.3.

PW2 further admitted that there is no commencement and ending date for the order conducted by LW2.

12.PW3 to PW14 who are the witnesses and members primary agricultural cooperative society (PACS) Bhavanipet not supported the prosecution case and subsequently they were declared as hostile witnesses. PW14 to PW17 panch witnesses to the recovery and confession of A1 to A3 not supported the prosecution case and subsequently they were declared as hostile witnesses.

JMFC, Bodhan 9 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

13.PW18 investigation officer in his chief examination deposed that on 24.05.2015 he received a complaint from PW1 and basing on the complaint registered a case in crime no. 169 of 2015 for an offence under section 420, 406, 468 R/w 34 of IPC. During the investigation he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW13. On 12.06.2015 he arrested accused no.1 and 2 and recorded the confession statements in presence of PW14 and PW15. Later they were remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently on 17.06.2015 the accused no.3 came to the police station and surrendered himself before him and confessed his guilt of committing the offence. Accordingly PW18 recorded the confession statement of accused no.3 and he was remanded to judicial custody.

Later he collected the documentary evidence by concluding the investigation and filed the charge sheet for an offence under section 420, 406, 468 R/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A3. PW18 in his cross examination stated that there is five years delay in lodging the complaint and the same is not explained by PW1. PW18 deposed that as per the report of LW2 the accused no.2 misappropriated the amount the advice to recover the amount from accused no.2 and deposed that he do not know whether PW2 stated in his enquiry that accused no.1 is not responsible for the offence. PW18 admitted that as per document filed before this court does not contain the signatures of accused no.3 and he has not filed any document showing what work entrusted to accused no.3. PW18 admitted that during the pendency of this case the accused no.3 preferred an appeal

before State cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad.

JMFC, Bodhan 10 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

POINT:

14. From the evidence of PW1/complainant where he stated that basing on the proceedings issued by the District Collector he filed this case. As per PW1 the audit was conducted for the year 2002-2003 and surcharge was issued in the year 2008, the District Collector issued the proceedings in the year 2010 and this case was lodged in the year 2015. PW1 admitted that there is delay of five years in lodging the complaint and the said delay was not explained by him. PW1 admitted that he did not verified the signatures of accused no.3 on the documents filed by him and he stated he do not know as per the report issued by one Gangaram sub divisional cooperative officer under section 51 enquiry is suppressed by my superior officers, where the name of the accused no.3 is not mentioned. On confrontation with Ex.D1 certified copy of Judgment of cooperative Tribunal the PW1 admitted that accused no.3 preferred an appeal and the said surcharge order was set aside against him.

15.PW1 except filing the complaint based on the proceedings issued by

District Collector not conducted any enquiry regarding the offence committed by accused no.1 and 3. Moreover, he admitted that he only lodged the complaint basing on the directions of District Collector but not verified the documents and signatures of accused no.3. PW1 failed to answer whether as per the report of one Gangaram Sub Divisional Cooperative Officer, who conducted enquiry under

JMFC, Bodhan 11 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

section 51 that if the name of accused no.3 is not mentioned. PW1 on confrontation with Ex.D1 stated that accused no.3 preferred an appeal before cooperative tribunal and the said surcharge order is set aside against him.

16.PW2 who worked as DLCO Bodhan in the year 2012 stated that LW2 conducted an audit for the year 2002-2003 and basing on the audit report he conducted an enquiry and submitted a surcharge order against A1 to A3. PW2 failed to depose the amount misappropriated by A1 and A3. Moreover PW2 admitted as per the statement of farmers the accused no.1 not committed any misappropriation and as per the report of one Gangaram I.,e Ex.P4 accused no.1 not committed any misappropriation of amount. PW2 admitted that he did not collected any document showing what work was entrusted to accused no.3.

17.The witnesses PW3 to PW17 not supported the prosecution case. PW18 investigation officer admitted that as per the report of LW2 accused no.2 misappropriated the amount and advised to recover the amount from accused no.2. PW18 deposed that he do not know whether as per the report of one

Gangaram accused no.1 was not committed any offence. PW18 admitted that the documents filed does not contained the signatures of accused no.3 and he has not collected any documents showing the entrusting of work to accused no.3.

18. From the aforesaid discussion, this court is of considered view that PW1 except lodging petition against A1 and A3 not conducted any enquiry or

JMFC, Bodhan 12 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

verification to confirm the allegation against A1 and A3. Moreover as claimed by the PW1 he filed the petition as per the directions of District collector. The LW2 who conducted the audit at PACS Bhavanipet for the year 2002 and 2003 and issued special report by fixing the liability on A1 to A3 not examined in this case and his evidence is closed. PW2 who conducted the enquiry and issued surcharge orders failed to mention what enquiry was conducted by him and failed to mention the amount misappropriated by the A1 and A3. PW2 admitted that as per the statements of the farmers and as per report Ex.P4 issued under section 51 of the Act the accused no.1 not misappropriated any amount. PW2 failed to depose what work was entrusted to accused no.3 and admitted that the accused no.3 preferred an appeal and the surcharge order against him is set aside by the cooperative tribunal. PW2 himself stated that he do not whether as per his report the accused no.1 not committed any offence. The farmers and members PW3 to

PW14 of PACS Bhavanipet not supported the prosecution case. Per contra the

PW18 investigation officer in his evidence stated that as per the report of LW2 the accused no.2 misappropriated the amount and advised to recover the amount from accused no.2. PW18 stated that the documents filed in this court does not contain the signatures of accused no.3 and he did not collected any document showing what work is assigned by the accused no.3.

19. In order to prove the offence under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 of

IPC the prosecution has to establish that accused no1 and 3 committed criminal

JMFC, Bodhan 13 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

breach of trust and misappropriated the amount by deceiving farmers and PACS

Sangem by committing the forgery. The PW3 to PW3 to PW13 farmers whose names are forged not supported the prosecution case and the other witnesses no where in their allegation took plea a forgery. The witnesses the PW1 and PW2 except categorical words not stated what is work entrusted to A1 and A3 and how they misappropriated the amounts and deceived the farmers. As per Ex.P2 and P3 the accused no.1 and 3 committed the offence by misappropriating the amounts, however the PW2 who issued the surcharge order Ex.P3 stated that he do not know that as per his order there is no misappropriation of amount by accused no.1. As per Ex.D1 the the surcharge order against accused no.3 is set aside by cooperative tribunal. Per contra the Ex.P4 report under section 51 of cooperative societies Act issued by one Gangaram reveals that no misappropriation committed by A1 and A3 which is admitted by PW1 in his evidence. Moreover the five years delay in lodging the complaint Ex.P1 is not explained by the PW1 which is fatal to this case.

20.Therefore, on evaluating the entire evidence, this court finds the version of

PW1 and PW2 improbable and difficult to believe. The Ex.P1 to P4 and D1 are contrary to each other which creates suspicion in the minds of this court. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the accused

A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

JMFC, Bodhan 14 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

Accused A1, A3 present.

21.In the result, the accused A1 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 Indian Penal Code and accordingly accused A1 and A3 are acquitted under section 255(1) Criminal Procedure Code for the above offence. The surety bonds of accused no 1 and 3 executed earlier shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time. As no property was involved in this case, no separate property order was passed.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of September, 2025. d/- d/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : PW1: P.Srinivas Reddy PW2: K. Purusharthy PW3: N. Babu Rao PW4: Raj Gopal PW5: G. Venkata Shiva rao PW6: Thota Sudershan PW7: K. Gopi PW8: Ch. Sailoo PW9: GRK Prasad PW10: A. Srinivas JMFC, Bodhan 15 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

PW11:K. Krishnamurthy PW12: M.Lingaram PW13: Lingaram PW14: K. Srinivas Rao PW15: M. Ravinder Babu PW16: T. Gangaram PW17: T. Gangadhar PW18: Ch. Venkanna

For Defence: - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Report

Ex.P2: Special report submitted by Senior Inspector Audit for the yer 2002 and 2003 (15 pages)

Ex.P3: Surcharge order DRCS, Bodhan RC.No.898 of 2002 dated 30.04.2008

Ex.P4: Deposition recorded under enquiry on various dates (16 pages)

Ex.P5: Set of cash books for the year 2002 and 2003 from 27.04.2002 to 29.03.2003 (52 pages)

Ex.P6: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P7: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P8: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P9: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P10: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P11: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P12: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P13: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P14: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P15: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P16: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P17: Signature on confession cum seizure panchanama as panch witness no.1

JMFC, Bodhan 16 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

Ex.P18: Signature on confession cum seizure panchanama as panch witness no.2 Ex.P19: Signature on confession cum seizure panchanama as panch witness no.1 Ex.P20: Signature on confession cum seizure panchanama as panch witness no.2 Ex.P21: FIR Ex.P22: Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1, A2 Ex.P23: Confession cum recovery panchanama of A3 Ex.P24: Attested copy of proceedings of district collector

For Defence :

Ex.D1: CC of judgment co-operative tribunal at Hyderabad

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

S-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

JMFC, Bodhan

1 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BODHAN

Present :- Smt. Markal Poojitha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bodhan.

Dated this the 26 th day of September, 2025.

Calendar Case NO.191 of 2015

Between:

The State through Police, Police Station Bodhan Rural. Represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor. …Complainant AND

1. Pallempati Shiva Narayana, S/o. Venkata Krishnaiah, Age: 54 years, Occ: Agril, R/o. H. No.1-2-1055, Rakasipet, Bodhan

2. Kulakarni Umakanth, S/o. Vasanthrao, Age: 54 years, Occ: Agril, R/o. H.No.2- 40/3 Bhavanipet (v) Bodhan (m) (abated)

3. Magiri Vijay Kumar, S/o. Poshetty, Age: 45 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Bhavanipet (v) Bodhan (M).

...Accused no.1 to 3

This case was came before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor representing for the State/Complainant and Sri.T.Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for accused no.1 and Sri. V.R.Desai Advocate for accused no.3, upon perusal of record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The police Bodhan Rural filed a charge sheet in Crime No.169 of 2015 for the offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code (in short IPC).

JMFC, Bodhan 2 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

2.The case of the prosecution in brief are as follows:

[a] The complainant Sri Loka Srinivas Reddy working as Divisional cooperative officer Bodhan filed a petition on 24.05.2015 stating that the primary

Agricultural Co-Operative Society Limited(PACS) Bhavanipet was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act 1964. During the audit of

PACS Bhavanipet (Now Merged in PACS Sangem) for the year 2002-2003, it is found that an amount of Rs. 13,17,952/- misappropriated by the then President,

Secretary and Sales Man. The senior Inspector/ Auditor Sri. M.A. Waheed conducted audit under Section 50 of APCS Act 1964 and submitted a special report fixing the responsibility against 1) P. Shiva Narayana, Ex- President, 2) K.

Umakanth, Ex-Secretary, 3) M. Vijay Kumar Ex-Sales Man. Accordingly surcharge orders U/s 60(1) of APCS Act 1964 were passed by Deputy Registrar

Bodhan against the above persons by duly conducting the independent enquiry with the concerned persons for recovery of misappropriated amounts. The accused persons 1. P.ShivaNarayana Ex-President of PACS Bhavanipet misappropriated the sale proceeds of fertilizers Rs.50,000/-, 2. K.Umakanth Ex-

Secretary of PACS Bhavanipet misappropriated society funds Rs. 2,27,225/- 3.

M.Vijay Kumar Ex- Sales Man PACS Bhavanipet misappropriated the sale proceeds of Fertilizers Rs. 10,40,727-00 and the total misappropriated amount is

Rs 13,17,952-00.

JMFC, Bodhan 3 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

[b] On the basis of special report and surcharge orders, the then District

Collector Nizamabad issued proceeding by permitting the Divisional Co-

Operative officer Bodhan Under section 83(3) of APCS act 1964 read with G.O

Ms. No. 251 Agriculture & Co-Operation Department dated 07-10-2009 to launch prosecution under section 409 IPC for committing the criminal breach of trust.

Further the original records and original Documents were submitted at Hon'ble

Co-Operative Tribunal Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad camp court at Warangal for civil case in C.T. A. No. 3/10 and 5/10 on 21.04.2010. As such he submitted certified copies of some of the following documents before SHO Bodhan along with his written complaint for necessary action. 1) Special report submitted by the senior inspector/ Auditor comprising (15) pages and audit report for the year 2002-2003, 2) Surcharge Order U/s 60 (1) of APCS act 1964 of Deputy Registrar of Co-op Societies Bodhan RC. No. 898/2002-D, Dt: 30.04.2008, 3) Depositions recorded under independent enquiry on various dates comprising (16) pages. 4)

Set of cash books pages for year 2002-03 i.e from 27.04.2002 to 29.03.2003 comprising 52 pages in which the fraud was noticed. As per the orders of District

Collector Nizamabad the complainant lodged the petition before Station House

Officer Bodhan to register criminal case against the three Delinquents and launch prosecution in the court of law".

[c]Basing on the petition of complainant, the LW-23 registered a case in Cr.No.169/2015 U/s 406, 420, 468 R/W 34 IPC and took up the investigation by dispatching the Express FIR copies to all concerned authorities. During the JMFC, Bodhan 4 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

course of the investigation the LW-23 examined and recorded the statement of the LW-1/complainant. Later the LW-23 secured the presence of LWs 2 and LW3 who are the co-operative authorities of Nizamabad District and examined and recorded their detailed statements. Further the LW-23 proceeded to Bhavanipet village of Bodhan mandal and secured the presence of LWs 4 to 18 who are the farmers and having their membership in PACS Bhavanipet and whose names are falsely entered in the registers by the accused persons A1 to A3 and misappropriated their loan amounts. LW-23 examined and recorded their detailed statements [d]While efforts are in progress for the apprehension of the accused persons, on 12.06.2015 at 10.30a.m. after receiving credible information LW-23 along with cops rushed to the house of the A1 located at Rakasipet Bodhan and found that the A1 and A2 are assembled in his house. On that the LW-23 apprehended the A1 & A2 and interrogated them thoroughly. During interrogation they revealed their names and particulars and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence along with A3. As such LW-23 secured the presence of two mediators LWs 19 & 20 and in their presence he recorded confessional statements of A1 and A2 and recovered a Xerox copy of Receipt No. 86880

dated 17.10.2012 which exhibiting the repayment of misappropriated amount of

Rs.2,55,000/- by the A2 from his instance and possession before the same mediators. Later brought the A1 and A2 to Police Station at 12:00 hours and affected their arrest by duly issuing arrest memos and followed 50 Cr.P.C. JMFC, Bodhan 5 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

procedure and produced them before the Hon'ble JFCM Bodhan for their judicial custody.

[e]On 17.06.2015 at 07:30 hours the absconded accused A3 came to

Police Station and surrendered himself before LW-23. As such LW-23 interrogated him thoroughly. During interrogation he revealed his name and particulars and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence along with

A1 and A2. Later LW-23 secured the presence of two mediators LWs 21 and 22 and in their presence he recorded confessional statement of A3 and seized

Xerox copies of Receipt No. 30542 for Rs.35,000/- dated 26.3.2008 and Receipt

No.30543 for Rs.19,300/- Dated 27.3.2008 which exhibiting the repayment of some of misappropriated amounts by the A3 from his instance and possession

before the same mediators. Later LW-23 affected his arrest duly issuing arrest

memo at 9.30 hours and followed 50 Cr.P.C procedure and produced him before the Hon’ble JFCM Bodhan for his judicial custody. After completion of investigation filed the charge sheet for an offence under sections 406, 420, 468

R/W 34 IPC against the accused no.1 to 3.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 IPC against the accused no.1 to 3.After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused no.2 reported died and case against A2 is abated on 21.04.2022. The accused no.1 and 3 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C by explaining the

JMFC, Bodhan 6 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

substance of accusation in Telugu for the offence under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 IPC against the accused no.1 and 3 for which they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

4.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW18 and exhibits P1 to P24 and Ex.D1 are marked. The details of documents marked are mentioned in the appendix of evidence.

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused A1 and A3 are examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and explained incriminating evidence against them for which thee denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence the defence evidence was closed.

6.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

7.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubts”?

8. To avoid reputation of facts and evidence both the points shall be considered at once. To prove the case the prosecution has to establish the ingredients under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 IPC.

9. Evidence on Record.

JMFC, Bodhan 7 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

PW1/Complainant in his chief examination deposed that he worked as DNSO

Bodhan for the year February 2013 to September 2016 and the LW2 conducted audit for the year 2002-2003 and observed some financial irregularities and submitted a special report to DSO, Nizamabad and basing on the special report

PW2 conducted an enquiry by calling all the concerned persons by fixing liability on accused no.1 for Rs. 50,000/-, accused no.3 for Rs.10,40,000/- and one

Umakanath for Rs.2,27,000/- as they misappropriated the said amount. PW1 further deposed that in the year 2010 the district collector issued a proceeding basing on the report of PW2. He later lodged a police complaint against A1 to A3 basing on the order of District Collector in the year 2015.

10.PW1 in his cross examination admitted that there is five year delay in lodging the complaint and the same is not explained in this complaint. PW1 admitted that he did not verified the signatures of A3 on the documents filed by him and further stated he do not know whether his superior officers suppressed the report filed under section 51 of Cooperative societies Act and lodged the complaint against A3. PW1 deposed that A3 preferred an appeal against the surcharge order Ex.P3 and the said order was set aside by corporative tribunal.

PW1 deposed that he do not know whether the proceedings by District Collector is filed before this court.

11.PW2 in his chief examination deposed that he worked as DLCO Bodhan from 2007-2012 where the LW2 submitted a special report to DCAO for the order JMFC, Bodhan 8 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

of the year 2002-2003 regarding a misappropriation committed by accused no.1 to 3 but he do not know the amount misappropriated by A1 to A3. Basing on the report of LW2 he issued show cause notice to A1 to A3 where A1 send a explanation with a show cause notice, but A2 and A3 did not sent any explanation. Later he sent summons to A1 to A3 for conducting enquiry. PW2 after conducting the enquiry issued a surcharge order against A1 to A3. PW2 in his cross examination admitted that on enquiry with the farmer they gave statement that A1 has not misappropriated any amount and he do not know as per his enquiry A1 has not committed any misappropriation of amount. PW2 admitted that as per the report of one Gangaram which is conducted under section 51 enquiry i.e., Ex.P4 A1 has not committed any misappropriation of amounts. PW2 further admitted that he has not collected any document regarding the employment, appointment and work entrusted to accused no.3.

PW2 further admitted that there is no commencement and ending date for the order conducted by LW2.

12.PW3 to PW14 who are the witnesses and members primary agricultural cooperative society (PACS) Bhavanipet not supported the prosecution case and subsequently they were declared as hostile witnesses. PW14 to PW17 panch witnesses to the recovery and confession of A1 to A3 not supported the prosecution case and subsequently they were declared as hostile witnesses.

JMFC, Bodhan 9 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

13.PW18 investigation officer in his chief examination deposed that on 24.05.2015 he received a complaint from PW1 and basing on the complaint registered a case in crime no. 169 of 2015 for an offence under section 420, 406, 468 R/w 34 of IPC. During the investigation he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW13. On 12.06.2015 he arrested accused no.1 and 2 and recorded the confession statements in presence of PW14 and PW15. Later they were remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently on 17.06.2015 the accused no.3 came to the police station and surrendered himself before him and confessed his guilt of committing the offence. Accordingly PW18 recorded the confession statement of accused no.3 and he was remanded to judicial custody.

Later he collected the documentary evidence by concluding the investigation and filed the charge sheet for an offence under section 420, 406, 468 R/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A3. PW18 in his cross examination stated that there is five years delay in lodging the complaint and the same is not explained by PW1. PW18 deposed that as per the report of LW2 the accused no.2 misappropriated the amount the advice to recover the amount from accused no.2 and deposed that he do not know whether PW2 stated in his enquiry that accused no.1 is not responsible for the offence. PW18 admitted that as per document filed before this court does not contain the signatures of accused no.3 and he has not filed any document showing what work entrusted to accused no.3. PW18 admitted that during the pendency of this case the accused no.3 preferred an appeal

before State cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad.

JMFC, Bodhan 10 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

POINT:

14. From the evidence of PW1/complainant where he stated that basing on the proceedings issued by the District Collector he filed this case. As per PW1 the audit was conducted for the year 2002-2003 and surcharge was issued in the year 2008, the District Collector issued the proceedings in the year 2010 and this case was lodged in the year 2015. PW1 admitted that there is delay of five years in lodging the complaint and the said delay was not explained by him. PW1 admitted that he did not verified the signatures of accused no.3 on the documents filed by him and he stated he do not know as per the report issued by one Gangaram sub divisional cooperative officer under section 51 enquiry is suppressed by my superior officers, where the name of the accused no.3 is not mentioned. On confrontation with Ex.D1 certified copy of Judgment of cooperative Tribunal the PW1 admitted that accused no.3 preferred an appeal and the said surcharge order was set aside against him.

15.PW1 except filing the complaint based on the proceedings issued by

District Collector not conducted any enquiry regarding the offence committed by accused no.1 and 3. Moreover, he admitted that he only lodged the complaint basing on the directions of District Collector but not verified the documents and signatures of accused no.3. PW1 failed to answer whether as per the report of one Gangaram Sub Divisional Cooperative Officer, who conducted enquiry under

JMFC, Bodhan 11 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

section 51 that if the name of accused no.3 is not mentioned. PW1 on confrontation with Ex.D1 stated that accused no.3 preferred an appeal before cooperative tribunal and the said surcharge order is set aside against him.

16.PW2 who worked as DLCO Bodhan in the year 2012 stated that LW2 conducted an audit for the year 2002-2003 and basing on the audit report he conducted an enquiry and submitted a surcharge order against A1 to A3. PW2 failed to depose the amount misappropriated by A1 and A3. Moreover PW2 admitted as per the statement of farmers the accused no.1 not committed any misappropriation and as per the report of one Gangaram I.,e Ex.P4 accused no.1 not committed any misappropriation of amount. PW2 admitted that he did not collected any document showing what work was entrusted to accused no.3.

17.The witnesses PW3 to PW17 not supported the prosecution case. PW18 investigation officer admitted that as per the report of LW2 accused no.2 misappropriated the amount and advised to recover the amount from accused no.2. PW18 deposed that he do not know whether as per the report of one

Gangaram accused no.1 was not committed any offence. PW18 admitted that the documents filed does not contained the signatures of accused no.3 and he has not collected any documents showing the entrusting of work to accused no.3.

18. From the aforesaid discussion, this court is of considered view that PW1 except lodging petition against A1 and A3 not conducted any enquiry or

JMFC, Bodhan 12 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

verification to confirm the allegation against A1 and A3. Moreover as claimed by the PW1 he filed the petition as per the directions of District collector. The LW2 who conducted the audit at PACS Bhavanipet for the year 2002 and 2003 and issued special report by fixing the liability on A1 to A3 not examined in this case and his evidence is closed. PW2 who conducted the enquiry and issued surcharge orders failed to mention what enquiry was conducted by him and failed to mention the amount misappropriated by the A1 and A3. PW2 admitted that as per the statements of the farmers and as per report Ex.P4 issued under section 51 of the Act the accused no.1 not misappropriated any amount. PW2 failed to depose what work was entrusted to accused no.3 and admitted that the accused no.3 preferred an appeal and the surcharge order against him is set aside by the cooperative tribunal. PW2 himself stated that he do not whether as per his report the accused no.1 not committed any offence. The farmers and members PW3 to

PW14 of PACS Bhavanipet not supported the prosecution case. Per contra the

PW18 investigation officer in his evidence stated that as per the report of LW2 the accused no.2 misappropriated the amount and advised to recover the amount from accused no.2. PW18 stated that the documents filed in this court does not contain the signatures of accused no.3 and he did not collected any document showing what work is assigned by the accused no.3.

19. In order to prove the offence under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 of

IPC the prosecution has to establish that accused no1 and 3 committed criminal

JMFC, Bodhan 13 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

breach of trust and misappropriated the amount by deceiving farmers and PACS

Sangem by committing the forgery. The PW3 to PW3 to PW13 farmers whose names are forged not supported the prosecution case and the other witnesses no where in their allegation took plea a forgery. The witnesses the PW1 and PW2 except categorical words not stated what is work entrusted to A1 and A3 and how they misappropriated the amounts and deceived the farmers. As per Ex.P2 and P3 the accused no.1 and 3 committed the offence by misappropriating the amounts, however the PW2 who issued the surcharge order Ex.P3 stated that he do not know that as per his order there is no misappropriation of amount by accused no.1. As per Ex.D1 the the surcharge order against accused no.3 is set aside by cooperative tribunal. Per contra the Ex.P4 report under section 51 of cooperative societies Act issued by one Gangaram reveals that no misappropriation committed by A1 and A3 which is admitted by PW1 in his evidence. Moreover the five years delay in lodging the complaint Ex.P1 is not explained by the PW1 which is fatal to this case.

20.Therefore, on evaluating the entire evidence, this court finds the version of

PW1 and PW2 improbable and difficult to believe. The Ex.P1 to P4 and D1 are contrary to each other which creates suspicion in the minds of this court. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the accused

A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

JMFC, Bodhan 14 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

Accused A1, A3 present.

21.In the result, the accused A1 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 406, 409, 420, 468 R/w 34 Indian Penal Code and accordingly accused A1 and A3 are acquitted under section 255(1) Criminal Procedure Code for the above offence. The surety bonds of accused no 1 and 3 executed earlier shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time. As no property was involved in this case, no separate property order was passed.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of September, 2025. d/- d/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : PW1: P.Srinivas Reddy PW2: K. Purusharthy PW3: N. Babu Rao PW4: Raj Gopal PW5: G. Venkata Shiva rao PW6: Thota Sudershan PW7: K. Gopi PW8: Ch. Sailoo PW9: GRK Prasad PW10: A. Srinivas JMFC, Bodhan 15 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

PW11:K. Krishnamurthy PW12: M.Lingaram PW13: Lingaram PW14: K. Srinivas Rao PW15: M. Ravinder Babu PW16: T. Gangaram PW17: T. Gangadhar PW18: Ch. Venkanna

For Defence: - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Report

Ex.P2: Special report submitted by Senior Inspector Audit for the yer 2002 and 2003 (15 pages)

Ex.P3: Surcharge order DRCS, Bodhan RC.No.898 of 2002 dated 30.04.2008

Ex.P4: Deposition recorded under enquiry on various dates (16 pages)

Ex.P5: Set of cash books for the year 2002 and 2003 from 27.04.2002 to 29.03.2003 (52 pages)

Ex.P6: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P7: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P8: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P9: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P10: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P11: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P12: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P13: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P14: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P15: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P16: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P17: Signature on confession cum seizure panchanama as panch witness no.1

JMFC, Bodhan 16 of 16

CC No.191 of 2015

Ex.P18: Signature on confession cum seizure panchanama as panch witness no.2 Ex.P19: Signature on confession cum seizure panchanama as panch witness no.1 Ex.P20: Signature on confession cum seizure panchanama as panch witness no.2 Ex.P21: FIR Ex.P22: Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1, A2 Ex.P23: Confession cum recovery panchanama of A3 Ex.P24: Attested copy of proceedings of district collector

For Defence :

Ex.D1: CC of judgment co-operative tribunal at Hyderabad

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

S-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

JMFC, Bodhan

1 of 15

CC No.509 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT BODHAN

Present :- Smt. Markal Poojitha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bodhan.

Dated this the 29 thday of September, 2025.

Calendar Case NO.509 of 2018

Between:

Soma Ramesh S/o Naganna, Age: 45 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.3-1-5, Thattikot Area, Bodhan Town, Nizamabad District. …Complainant

AND

R. Kishan Prasad S/o Narsimlu, Age: 37 Years, Occ: Dy. Inspector of Survey Dept. R/o H.No.4-3-2/34, Housing Board Colony, Shakkarnagar Locality, Bodhan Town and Nizamabad Dist.

...Accused

This case was came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. T.Indra karan, Counsel for complainant and Sri P.Sammaiah, counsel for accused, upon perusal of record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The complainant filed a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C against the accused person for an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881.

JMFC, Bodhanto 2 of 15

CC No.509 of 2018

2. The brief averments of complaint as follows:

[a] The complainant submitted that he is a agriculturist having 3 acres of agriculture land at Douthyal Tarfa shivar, Bodhan town, and the accused is the resident of Shakkarnagar who is working as Deputy Inspector of Survey department Nizamabad have good acquaintance with each other since couple of years. Due to the said acquaintance on 16.07.2017 the accused approached the complainant and borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- at his residence and executed a promissory note. LW2 to LW6 stood as witnesses and LW6 stood as surety where as LW5 scribed the promissory note. The complainant several times approached the accused and requested to repay the borrowed amount with interest of @ 24% per annum, but the accused did not keep his promise and postponed the payment on one or the other reason. The accused finally on 21.03.2018 issued a cheque bearing no. 071344 in his SB account no.

623141753319 of State Bank of Hyderabad branch in discharge of his legal enforceable debt. The complainant on 29.03.2018 presented the cheque issued by the accused in Canara Bank, Bodhan Branch in account no. 4497101002120 and on the same day the bank authorities returned the cheque along with a memo stating the cheque is dishonored due to “insufficient funds”. The complainant on 20.04.2018 issued a legal notice to the accused person for payment of borrowed amount and the same is received by the accused on 21.04.2018 and he sent a reply notice through his counsel dated 04.05.2018 and

JMFC, Bodhanto 3 of 15

CC No.509 of 2018

the same is served on the complainant on 08.05.2018 and the complainant sort for legal action against the accused person.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence under section 138 of NI Act against the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation in her vernacular language and the accused having understood the same pleaded not guilty and claim for trial.

4.In order to prove the case of the complainant, the witnesses PW1 and

PW2 are examined and exhibits P1 to P5 were marked through PW1. The details of documents marked are mentioned in the appendix of evidence.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and explained with incriminating evidence against him for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

Hence defence evidence closed.

6.Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the material on record.

7.Now the point for determination is:

1. Whether the accused issued cheque bearing no. 071344 dated 21.03.2018 of SBH, for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant in discharge of his legally enforceable debt ?

JMFC, Bodhanto 4 of 15

CC No.509 of 2018

2. Whether the cheque presented to the banker within the validity of the cheque?

3. Whether the cheque returned unpaid?

4. Whether the complainant issued demand notice for payment of said amount U/s 138 of Negotiable instrument Act 1881 to the accused within statutory period?

5. Whether the accused failed to make payment of the said amount to the complainant within statutory period?

6. Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/s 138 of Negotiable instruments Act?

7. If so, to what relief?

8. To avoid repetition of facts and evidence both shall be considered at once.

Here, in this case to prove the alleged offense, the complainant has to prove the ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act.

Evidence on record.

9.PW1 filed chief examination affidavit in lieu of chief examination and reiterated the entire contents of the complaint. PW1 in his cross examination deposed that he do not have direct acquaintance with the accused person and he knows one person Ravi Kumar having finance business and he invested in said finance business. PW1 deposed that he gave Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused person in cash form which he received from his agriculture and stated that he cannot say the denomination of the amount given. PW1 admitted that he did not

JMFC, Bodhanto 5 of 15

CC No.509 of 2018

filed any document to show his income from agriculture land. PW1 admitted that as mentioned in para no.2 of chief examination affidavit that the accused executed a promissory note in his favour in presence of LW2 to LW4 is false.

PW1 deposed that he knows one Ravi kumar owner of Krishna finance and one

Naganpally Ravi and they three filed three cases on the same day. PW1 denied the suggestion that he filed a false case misusing the cheque lying with one Ravi kumar. PW1 stated that accused issued a typed cheque at Ghoshala road in the afternoon time and denied the suggestion that on the alleged day of issuing cheque the accused was on the duty. PW1 admitted that he invested Rs.50,000/- in the finance business with one Ravi kumar but not obtained any joint license for the finance business.

10.The accused person took the following defence.

a. The accused never borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant.

b. The complainant in collusion with one Ravi kumar and one Naganpally

Ravi filed this case by misusing the cheques lying with Ravi kumar.

c. The complainant gave a Rs.1,50,000/- which is above Rs.20,000/- in cash form which is prohibited by law.

d. On the date of issuing the cheque the accused was on duty and not issued any cheque.

JMFC, Bodhanto 6 of 15

CC No.509 of 2018

POINT NO’.1 :

1. Whether the accused issued cheque bearing no. 071344 dated 21.03.2018 of SBH, for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant in discharge of his legally enforceable debt ?

11.The complainant/PW1 in his evidence stated that he is a agriculturist having 3 acres of agricultural land and accused is a government employee on 16.07.2017 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and promised to repay by executing a promissory note in presence of witnesses. The accused failed to repay the borrowed amount and after several requests the accused on 21.03.2018 issued a cheque bearing no 071344 of state bank of india of his SB account no. 623141753319. Ex.P1 is the Original Cheque bearing no. 071344

dt. 21.03.2018. On 21.03.2018 the accused presented the cheque in Canara

bank for realization through his account A/c 4497101002120 but on the same day it is dishonored and the bank authorities returned the cheque with a memo as “Funds Insufficient”. The PW1 in his cross examination stated that he gave

Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused in a cash form which he received from this agricultural produce and the accused gave the cheque in typed form in a shop at

Goshala road in the afternoon hours. PW1 admitted that as mentioned in his chief examination affidavit that accused executed promissory note in presence of witnesses is false and further admitted that he knows one Ravi Kumar and

Naganpally Ravi and he invested Rs.50,000/- at their finance business. The PW1

JMFC, Bodhanto 7 of 15

CC No.509 of 2018

denied the suggestion that he misused the cheques lying with the Ravi kumar and filed they three filed three cases on the same day. The PW1 further denied that accused is on duty on the alleged day of issuing the cheque.

12. The defence counsel during arguments filed the citation Kelly Joseph vs

Hamid Ahmed where the Hon’ble Supreme court in para no 18 to 21 and 26 held that:

Para 18 It is well settled Principle of criminal jurisprudence that a criminal trial proceeds on the presumptions of innocence of the accused i.e. accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. Thus, normally the initial burden to prove the guilt of the accused lies on the complainant/Prosecution. Also, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. However, in the offence under section 138 NI Act, there is a reverse onus clause contained in the section 118 and 139 of the Act.

Para 19. Section 118(a) of the Act provides that until the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that “that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for the consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration”

JMFC, Bodhanto 8 of 15

CC No.509 of 2018

Para20. Further, section 139 of the Act lays down that “it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of cheque of the nature of referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.”

Para21. On bare reading of these provisions, it becomes clear that the court shall presume the execution of a negotiable instruments for consideration unless and until contrary is proved. Similarly the court shall also draw a presumption in favour of the complainant/holder of the cheque that the said cheque has been issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt or other liability.

Para26. Thus, Sec. 139 of the act puts the burden on the accused to prove his defence. However, the accused has to prove his defence on the balance of

Probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. Accused can prove his defence by drawing inferences from the materials already on record (including complainant’s evidences), circumstances of the case and also leading his own evidence. If the accused successfully creates doubts in the complainants claim about the existences of legally enforceable debt then the burden of proof shifts back to the complainant who is the required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

JMFC, Bodhanto 9 of 15

CC No.509 of 2018

13. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the above cited judgment that if the accused can prove his defence by drawing inferences from the material already on record including complainants evidence and if the accused creates the doubt in the complainant’s claim about the existence of legally enforceable debt then the burden of proof shifts on the complainant.

14. The accused not step into witness box, but he relied upon the material elicited in the cross examination of PW1 to prove his case. The accused in cross examination of PW1 took a defence that the he never borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant but the complainant along with One Ravi Kumar and

Naganapally Ravi misused the cheque lying with one Ravi Kumar and filed this false against him. Answering the suggestions posed by the defence councel the

PW1 denied the suggestions that the accused never borrowed the amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- and stated he gave Rs.1,50,000/- in cash form to accused. The

PW1 denied the suggestion that he misused the cheques lying with One Ravi kumar. PW1 denied the suggestion that on the date of issuing the cheque the accused is on duty and stated that accused issued typed cheque in the afternoon hours at a shop in Goshala Road. The accused except making oral assertions that he never borrowed the amount from the complainant and the complainant misused the cheques lying with one Ravi kumar not denied the issuing the cheque and the signature on the cheque. The PW1 admitted that he knows One

Ravi Kumar and Naganpally Ravi and he invested Rs.50,000/- in the finance

JMFC, Bodhanto 10 of 15

CC No.509 of 2018

business. The said admission does not seem to effect the contention of PW1.

The accused failed to explain that how the cheques are lying with one Ravi

Kumar and how the complainant misused the cheques lying with one Ravi

Kumar. Accused failed to adduce evidence to show that he is on duty on the alleged date of issuing the cheque.

15. The PW1 stated that he gave Rs.1,50,000/- in a cash form which he received from his agriculture and further stated that he do not know that if the cash transaction above Rs.20,000/- shall be done through bank and not by cash.

The complainant is a agriculturist and is not a income tax assesee. It is a conceivable fact that a agriculturist having Rs.1,50,000/- cash in hand which he can receive from his agricultural produce as it is not accounted as huge amount.

When ever a cheque is issued the court presumes such cheque is issued in discharge if legally enforceable debt unless contrary is proved. The complainant put forth his contention by adducing sufficient evidence i.e. Ex.P1 to P5. The accused tried to take the shelter mentioned in para no 26 of above judgment, however the accused failed to create the doubt that cheque is not issued in discharge of his legally enforceable debt. Mere taking oral assertions as defence does not discharge his burden of proof. The accused failed to discharge his burden and adduce any cogent evidence to rebut the presumption. From the aforesaid discussion it is proved that the cheque has been issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt. Accordingly the point is answered.

JMFC, Bodhanto 11 of 15

CC No.509 of 2018

POINT’s NO. 2 & 3:

2. “Whether the cheque presented to the banker within the validity of the cheque”?

3. “Whether the cheque returned unpaid”?

16.PW1 in his evidence stated that the accused failed to make payment and issued a post dated cheque on 15.03.2018 I.,e Ex.P1 and he presented the cheque before canara bank on 21.03.2018, the bank authorities returned the cheque along with memo stating cheque dishonored as “Funds Insufficient”

Ex.P2 is the Cheque return memo issued by Canara bank stating the cheque dishonored due to “Insufficient funds”. Accused did not take any defence regarding presentation of Cheque.

17.Upon perusal of Ex.P1 cheque dt. 21.03.2018 and Ex.P2 Cheque return memo Dt.22.03.2018 shows that the cheque returned unpaid and observed that cheque presented with in the validity of cheque i.e. three months. No defence took by the accused regarding presentation of cheques. From the aforesaid discussion it is proved that the Ex.P1 was presented before the banker within its validity and the same is returned unpaid with the reason of funds insufficient.

Accordingly the points no.2 and 3 are answered.

POINT’s No. 4 to 6:

JMFC, Bodhanto 12 of 15

CC No.509 of 2018

4. “Whether the complainant issued demand notice for payment of said amount U/s 138 of Negotiable instrument Act 1881 to the accused within statutory period”?

5. “Whether the accused failed to make payment of the said amount to the complainant within statutory period”?

18.The PW1 in his evidence stated that on 22.03.2018 he received cheque unpaid with the memo and on 20.04.2018 he issued a demand legal notice to the accused which is received by her on 21.04.2018. The accused sent a reply through his counsel dt.04.05.2018 but not paid the amount. Ex.P5 is the Office copy of Legal notice, Ex.P3 is the postal receipt dt.20.4.2018, Ex.P6 is the postal

Acknowledgment dt.21.04.2018. No defence taken by the accused as to sending the legal notice regarding dishonor of cheque and non payment of amount.

19.Here in the instant case, the accused did not take any defence regarding legal notice and non payment of borrowed amount. Ex.P2 to P5 shows that PW1 issued a legal notice intimating the dishonor of cheque and received the same and sent the reply to the legal notice but failed to make the payment. From receiving the legal Notice and sending reply to the legal notice clearly shows that accused has knowledge of dishonored cheque. Therefore it is proved that the complainant issued demand legal notice Ex.P4 for payment of said amount with in the statutory period to the accused person and the accused person did not make payment. The accused failed to put forth any defence in this regard to discharge his burden. Hence the points are answered accordingly. JMFC, Bodhanto 13 of 15

CC No.509 of 2018

POINT No. 7:

7. “Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/s 138 of Negotiable instruments Act”?

20. From the aforesaid findings on point no 1 to 6, and evidence of PW1 and

Ex.P1 to P5, this court is of the opinion that the complainant established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

POINT NO.8 :

8. If so, to what relief?

21. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. Hence the accused is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.PC.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of September, 2025.

d/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

Convict is given a time of one hour for reflection and called again. Heard the convict with regard to the quantum of sentence. He submitted that he is having small children and if the sent to jail it would cause hardship to his family as he is one of the earning person in the family. Convict further stated that he is suffering with different ailments and frequently falling unwell. The convicted prayed to grant only fine as punishment and take lenient view regarding sentence.

JMFC, Bodhanto 14 of 15

CC No.509 of 2018

The learned counsel for convict requested to invoke the provisions of Probation of offenders act and submitted that the convicted person is frequently falling ill and he is having children, he going to jail would cause hardship to the family members.

Upon considered the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and submissions of the convict, this court is not intended to invoke the sections under Probation of offenders Act.

upon considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case and considering the economic and social background of the convicted person, this court considers to take lenient view on the convicted person regarding the sentence,

Therefore the accused person sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and shall pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- U/s 357 Cr.P.C to the complainant with in three months from the date of judgment for an offence under section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act. In Default of payment of compensation ordered the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months.

The convict is informed about his right to free legal aid to prefer appeal. Office is directed to supply a copy of Judgment free of cost to the convict forthwith.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of September, 2025.

/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

JMFC, Bodhanto 15 of 15

CC No.509 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant Evidence : For Defence Evidence:

PW1: Soma Ramesh NIL.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1:Original Cheque No. 071344 dt: 21-03-2018 Ex.P2: Bank return memo dated 22.03.2018 Ex.P3: Postal receipt dated 20.04.2018 Ex.P4: Postal Acknowledgment dt: 21-04-2018 Ex.P5 Office Copy of Legal Notice Dt: 20-04-2018

For Defence :

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

JMFC, Bodhanto

1 of 14

CC No.111 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT BODHAN

Present :- Smt. Markal Poojitha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bodhan.

Dated this the 29 th day of September, 2025.

Calendar Case NO.05 of 2020

Between:

The State through Police, Police Station Bodhan Town. Represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor.

…Complainant

AND

1. Arkala Sanjeevi @ Sanjeev Reddy, S/o Venanna, Age: 47 Years, Occ: conductor, R/o H.No.6-34/2, Chandoor Village of Varni Mandal,

2. M.d.Hanifuddin S/o MD. Yashin, Age: 43 Years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No.6-24/43/a, Ootpally, Bodhan

3. Anwar Khan S/o Meer Mahamood Ali Khan, Age: 60 Years, Occ: Rtd., RTC Employee, R/o H.No. 2-52, Pentakurdhu Village, Bodhan

4. L.Chandu S/o Devulu, Age: 53 Years, Occ: Mechanic foremen, R/o H.No. 7-1/1, Durga Nagar Thanda, Makloor Mandal.

5. KVS Prasad S/o Prasad, Age: 54 Years, Occ: RTC Driver, R/o H.No.1-4-437, Saraswathi Nagar, Bodhan.

6. Abdul Mubeen S/o Abdul Ghani, Age: 54 Years, Occ: RTC Driver, R/o H.no.4-1-778, Achanpally Bypass, Bodhan.

7. Gogula Ramulu, S/o Lingaiah, Age: 52 Years, Occ: Jr.Asst., at Bodhan RTC Depot, R/o H.No.2-57, Ambam Village.

JMFC, Bodhan 2 of 14

CC No.111 of 2017

8. Longam Sudharshan S/o Rajanna, Age: 52 Years, Occ:Controller (ADC) R/o H.No.2-57, Ambam Village, Bodhan

9. Battu Dayanand S/o Sailu, Age: 52 Years, Occ: Controller (ADC), R/o H.No.1-4-73, Saraswathi Nagar, Bodhan

10. Anyam Rama Krishna Reddy s/o Nagi Reddy, Age: 50 Years, Occ:Mechanic, R/o H.No.2-11-3A, Sarangapoor Village, Nizamabad.

11. Saineni Kondal Rao S/o Late Rajeshwar, Age: 46 Years, Occ: RTC Conductor, R/o H.No.2-142, Kailur, Adilabad Dist.

12. Karlam Nagaraju S/o Karlam Sailu, Age: 46 Years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No.1-19, Pentakalan Village, Bodhan.

13. Putta Bala Goud S/o Srinivas Goud, Age: 57 Years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No.9-99, Mosra Village, Varni Mandal

14. Liyakath ali S/o MD. Haneefh, Age: 57 Years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No.4-1-633/2, Aneesanagar, Bodhan

15. Battu Ramulu S/o Battu Balu Nayak, Age: 50 Years, Occ: RTC Superintendent, R/o H.No.5-72/2, Ootpally Bodhan

16. Chinna Sailu, S/o Chinna Poshetty, Age: 52 Years, Occ: Conductor, R/o H.No.3-96/1, Renjal Village, Bodhan (Abated)

17. Chattu Baby Rani, S/o M.D. Arifh, Age: 45 Years, Occ: Conductor, R/o H.No.1-3-324, RTC Colony, Bodhan

18. Kothally Thara @ Thasleema W/o Sangaiah, Age: 38 Years, Occ: Conductor, R/o Bommandevpalle Village, Birkur Mandal

19. Rudavath Jaya Pavan W/o Pavan Kumar, Age: 32 Years, Occ: Conductor, R/o H.No.5-21/29/1, Ootpally Village, Bodhan

JMFC, Bodhan 3 of 14

CC No.111 of 2017

20. Neeradi Manula W/o Neeradi Sailu, Age: 51 Years, Occ: RTC Conductor, R/o H.No.3-62/1, Amdapoor Village, Bodhan Mandal, Now present Hanuman Tekdi, anil talkies road, Bodhan.

21. Parimela Geetha Vani W/o Nagabushnam, Age: 37 Years, Occ: Conductor, R/o H.No.1-73, Pocharam Village, Banswada Mandal

22. Sayed Sajeed Ali S/o Maqsood Ali, Age: 30 Years, Occ: RTC Driver, R/o H.No.1-95/1, Pentakalan Village, Bodhan

23. Myaka Sudhakar S/o Chinnaiah, Age: 35 Years, Occ: RTC Conductor, R/o H.No.8-4, Yedapally Mandal

24. Goutham Kumar Rodda S/o Abbaiah Age: 30 Years, Occ: PDSU Dist. Secretary, R/o H.No.1-85/1, SC Colony, Sangam, Nizamabad

25. Vadla Satish Kumar, S/o Gopi, Age: 19 Years, Occ: Student, R/o H.No.2-4-163/6, Baswatharaka Nagar, Bodhan

26. Shaik Kaleem S/o Abdul Rahaman Age: 42 Years, Occ: Congress Minority Vice President, R/o H.No.1-4-33/B, Sharbathi Cannal, Bodhan

...Accused No.1 to 26

This case was came before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor representing for the State/Complainant and Sri.V.R.Desai, counsel for accused, upon perusal of record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The police Bodhan Rural filed charge sheet in Crime No.394 of 2018 for the offence punishable under sections 353, 188 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC).

JMFC, Bodhan 4 of 14

CC No.111 of 2017

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

[a] The complainant Head Constable 1398 on 28.10.2019 submitted written petition before police Bodhan Town where he stated that on 28.10.2019

TSRTC employees, union of Bodhan depot and local opposition political parties given a call for rally to RDO office to submit their memorandum of demands. The complainant as per the directions of his superior officers along with WPC 2303,

WHG89, 154, 626 and special party were deputed for bandobast duty at RDO

Office. At 12:30 the RTC employees, union members, political parties members went RDO office in a rally by making slogans against the government and tried to enter into the RDO chambers, when the complainant and other deputed police informed to go only 4 people inside the chamber and tried to Stop them, at once all the RTC employees and others pushed the police people and went inside the

RDO chamber and caused nuisance. On enquiry, he got the names of the individuals those who were entered into the RDO office by obstructing them and violated the terms and condtions of the Government orders, are 1) Sanjeev

Reddy, RTC Convener, 2) MD Aneefhuddin, 3) Anwar Pasha Rtd., RTC Driver,

4) L.Chandu, 5) KVS Prasad, 6) A. Mubeen, 7) G.Ramulu, 8) L.Sudhershan, 9)

B.Dayanand, 10) ARK Reddy, 11) S.Kondal Rao, 12) K.Naga Raju, 13) P.Balu

Goud, 14) Liyakath ali, 15) B.Ramulu, 16) C.Sailu, 17) Baby Rani, 18) Thaslim,

19) Jaya Laxmi, 20) Manjula, 21) Vani, 22) Ali, 23) Sudhakar, 24) Goutham

PDSU, 25) B.Sathish, Shiv Sena Party and 26) Shaik Kaleem Congress Party, finally the petitioner sought for leagal actiona gainst the above persons. JMFC, Bodhan 5 of 14

CC No.111 of 2017

[b]Basing on the contents of the petition, the LW8 registered a case in crime number 394/2019 for an offence U/s 353, 188 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to

A26 and issued FIR. During the course of investigation Pw.8 examined and recorded the Sec. 161 Cr.PC. Statements of Pw.1 to 4 and Pw.7. Later visited the scene of crime located in RDO office premises, Bodhan, where secired two mediators i.e., Pw.5 and Pw.6 in their presence inspected the scene minutely and drafted the scene and seketch in crime details form.

[c]During the course of investigation on 28-11-2019 at 1500 hours

Pw.8 Issued notices under section 41-A Cr.P.C and served to accused No.1 to 26 and informed them that a case has been registered against them vide Cr.No.

394 of 2019 under section 353, 188 r/w 34 of IPC. In response to the notice on the same day the accused persons A1 to A26 came to the police station and voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and complied the instructions as per the notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. As such they were not arrested. After completion of investigation PW8 filed the charge sheet for an offence under sections 353, 188 R/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A26.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence under sections 353, 188 R/w 34 of IPC against the accused A1 to A26. After appearance of the accused persons copies of documents were furnished under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused persons A1 to A26 are examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C by explaining the

JMFC, Bodhan 6 of 14

CC No.111 of 2017

substance of accusation under sections 353, 188 R/w 34 of IPC in their vernacular language and the accused persons having understood the same pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined witnesses PW1 to PW8 and exhibits P1 to P5 were marked. The details of documents marked are mentioned in the appendix of evidence.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and explained with incriminating evidence against them for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence the defence evidence is closed.

6.Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the material on record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to establish the guilt of the accused for an offence under sections 353, 188 R/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts”?

8. To avoid repetition of facts and evidence both shall be considered at once.

Here, in this case to prove the alleged offense, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of sections 353, 188 R/w 34 of IPC.

JMFC, Bodhan 7 of 14

CC No.111 of 2017

Evidence on record.

9.PW1 in his evidence deposed that on 28.10.2019 as per the instructions of

SHO Bodhan, he along with PW2 to 4, PW7 were doing Bandobast duty at RDO office, at the same time the RTC employees conducted a rally from Ambedkar

Chowrasta to RDO office, they informed the employees that only four members should go inside the RDO chamber but the accused persons without listening to them went upstairs to RDO chamber by pushing them. PW1 identified accused no.1 to 3 present in the court hall and deposed they are the union leaders of RTC as such he identified A1 to A3. PW1 deposed that he cannot specifically say that who pushed them from 26 members and admitted that he did not mentioned in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that who pushed them and went into the RDO office.

10.PW2 in her evidence deposed that two years ago, the RTC employees conducted a rally from Ambedkar chowrasta to RDO office to submit their memorandum of demands. PW2 deposed that police did not examined and recorded her statement. PW2 during her cross examination by learned APPO admitted that she stated before police as in her 161 Cr.P.C statement. PW2 in her cross examination deposed that she cannot identify the 26 members mentioned in her 161 Cr.P.C statement and cannot say their individual acts on the said day.

11.PW3 deposed similarly as PW1 but no where stated that the RTC employees pushed them and went inside the RDO office. PW3 in his cross

JMFC, Bodhan 8 of 14

CC No.111 of 2017

examination deposed that he did not mentioned in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that on whose instructions they informed the employees that only four members should go inside the RDO office.

12.PW4 in her evidence deposed that on 28.09.2019 she was deputed to work at RDO office and on the same day around 30 members and other political party members came to RDO office by making slogans against the Government and tried to enter into RDO office and when they tried to stop them all the accused persons obstructed their duties. PW4 identified accused no.1 present in the court hall. PW4 in he cross examination deposed that she was standing at the entrance gate of RDO office which is 100 feet distance from RDO building.

PW4 deposed that she did not mentioned what slogans was made by accused persons against the Government in her 161 Cr.P.C statement. She further deposed that accused no.1 is the union leader and frequently visits the police station for their issues. PW4 stated that no video graph was taken at the time of incident.

13.PW5 and PW6 panch wintessess not supported the prosecution case and they were declared as hostile witnesses. PW7 deposed similarly as PW1. PW7 in his cross examination admitted that he did not witnessed when the accused persons came in a rally from Ambedkar Chowrasta to RDO office. PW7 deposed that there is no written order from the RDO to send only four members inside the

JMFC, Bodhan 9 of 14

CC No.111 of 2017

chamber. PW7 admitted that he did not mentioned about the political leaders who are involved in the said incident.

14.PW8 investigation officer in his evidence deposed that, he received the complaint from PW1 and basing on the complaint he registered a case in crime no. 394 of 2019 for an offence under section 353, 188 R/w 34 of IPC and issued

FIR. During investigation he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 to

PW4 and PW7 and later proceeded to scene of offence at RDO office Bodhan and conducted scene of offence panchanama in presence of PW5 and PW6 .

On 28.11.2019 he issued section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused no.1 to 26 and informed them that the case was registered against them. As such the accused no.1 to 26 came to police station and voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against A1 to A26.

15.PW8 in his cross examination deposed that he did not received any written requisition from RDO office to provide Bandobath and admitted that he did not filed any document showing that PW1 to PW4, PW7 are deputed and Bandobath duty. PW8 deposed that the witnesses Pw1 to PW4, PW7 not stated in their 161

Cr.P.C statement about the overt acts of the accused persons who pushed the police personals and obstructed their duties. There is no photograph or video graphs filed to show the alleged incident. PW8 admitted that he did not cited any political party members as accused in Ex.P1. JMFC, Bodhan 10 of 14

CC No.111 of 2017

POINT:

16.From the evidence on record the witnesses examined PW1 to PW4 and

PW7 are the police personals. No independent witness from RDO office examined in this case to prove the obstruction by the accused persons. Panch witnesses not supported the prosecution case. Except PW1 and PW7 no other witness stating that the RTC members pushed them and went inside the RDO chamber . PW1 and PW4 identified the accused no.1 as he is a union leader who frequently visits police station. All the witnesses admitted that they did not mentioned the specific overt acts of the accused persons who pushed them and who obstructed their duties. PW7 admitted that he did not witnessed when the accused persons coming in a rally from Ambedkar chowrasta to RDO office. All the witnesses stated that they informed the RTC employees that only four members should go inside however admitted that there are no directions from

RDO to send only four members. The investigation PW8 stated that the witnesses PW1 to PW4, PW7 are deputed for Bandobasth duty at RDO office and admitted that he did not file any document to show that they are deputed to work at RDO office and admitted that there is no written requisition from RDO office to provide Bandobasth at RDO office. As per Ex.P1 and the evidence on record it is alleged that along with RTC employees there are political party members on the day of incident and admitted that by investigation officer that they were not cited as accused persons.

JMFC, Bodhan 11 of 14

CC No.111 of 2017

17. The defence counsel during the arguments vehemently argued that without any order from the public servants the police officials stopped the RTC employees from submitting their demands to the RDO. Defence counsel further argued that as per the chargesheet, Ex.P1 and admission by the witnesses other political party members are their on the alleged day and police not shown them as accused persons. The police restrained the alleged accused persons from submitting their demands to RDO by impleading them in a false case by interfering with their legal rights..

18.In order to prove the offence under section 188, 353 R/w 34 of IPC the prosecution has to establish that the accused persons disobeyed the order promulgated by public servant and used assault or criminal force against public servant while discharging his duties. As per the evidence on record and admission made by the witnesses that there is no written order by the public servant that not to allow the RTC employees to put forth their demands through memorandum at RDO is made. As admitted by PW8 investigation officer there is no written directions from the RDO office to send only four members into the chamber of RDO and to stop the RTC employees. Moreover there is no complaint from any member from RDO office that accused persons caused public nuisance at RDO office. PW1 and PW7 stated that the accused persons pushed them and went inside the RDO chamber but the other witnesses PW2 to

PW4 no where stated about pushing the police on the alleged day. PW4 and

JMFC, Bodhan 12 of 14

CC No.111 of 2017

PW7 stated that the RTC members obstructed their duties but the other witnesses no where mentioned about the obstructions caused by the RTC members. All the witnesses failed to mentioned who pushed them and obstructed the duties and failed to mentioned and identified the accused persons involved.

Their are material omissions between the evidence of witnesses. As per the

Ex.P1 and evidence of PW7 and PW8 there are RTC members and other political party members however they where not impleaded as accused.

19. Therefore from the evidence, this court is of the considered opinion that the witnesses examined are police personnel's and there are material omissions as to assault and obstruction of their legal duties. More over it is admitted by the investigation officer that no document filed to show the PW1 to PW5 deputed for bandobast duty at RDO office and further admitted that there is request from

RDO office to provide bandobast. No independent witness examined from the

RDO examined to prove the obstruction by the accused persons. The witnesses examined failed to mention the overt acts of the accused persons and failed to name them and identify them. The evidence adduced appeared unconceivable and not satisfied the ingredients of alleged offence. The prosecution entirely failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons A1 to A26 for an offence under sections 353, 188 R/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. This court considers reasonable to give benefit of doubt to the accused persons A1 to A26. Hence the point is answered accordingly.

JMFC, Bodhan 13 of 14

CC No.111 of 2017

20. In the result, the accused A1 to A26 is not found guilty for the offence under sections 353, 188 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly accused is acquitted under section 255(1) Criminal Procedure Code for the above offence.

The surety bonds of the accused persons A1 to A26 executed earlier shall stand canceled after the lapse of appeal period. As no property involved in this case no separate order is passed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of September, 2025.

/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : PW1: K.Shankar

PW2: Showkath Begum

PW3: Uma Rani

PW4: R.Anuradha

PW5: Shaik Malik Ahmed

PW6: K.Laxman

PW.7: N.Suvarna

PW.8: Mood Ambarya

For Defence: - None -

JMFC, Bodhan 14 of 14

CC No.111 of 2017

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Report

Ex.P2: Signature of Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P3: Signature of Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4: FIR Ex.P5: Scene of offence panchanama along with Rough sketch

For Defence : -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

JMFC, Bodhan

1 of 13

CC No.183 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT BODHAN

Present :- Smt. Markal Poojitha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bodhan.

Dated this the 22 ndday of September, 2025.

Calendar Case NO. 183 of 2017

Between:

Sri. Nagalla Koteshwar Rao, S/o. Shivanandam, Age: 65 years, Occ: Rtd. Employee in panchayath Raj dept. R/o. Penta Khurd, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad district.

…Complainant

AND

Sri. Kalapala Kalyan Kumar, S/o. Late Sri. Kalapala Subba Rao, Age: 45 years, R/o. Near to Indur Model school, Achanpally, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad district.

...Accused

This case was came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K. Subba Rao, Counsel for complainant and Sri. M. Sridhar Babu, counsel for accused, upon perusal of record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The complainant filed a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C against the accused person for an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881.

2. The brief averments of complaint as follows:

JMFC, Bodhan 2 of 13

CC No.183 of 2017

[a] The complainant submitted that on 25-07-2016 the accused person borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for his personal necessities and executed a promissory note by agreeing to pay interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant. The complainant approached the accused several times and requested to repay the amount borrowed but the accused person did not keep his promise and postponed the payment on one or the other reason. The accused finally on 07.12.2016 issued a cheque bearing no. 000006 for

Rs.2,30,000/- of Andhra Bank, Bodhan branch in discharge of his legally enforceable debt along with interest and hand loan amount of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant on 07.02.2017 presented the cheque before Andhra Bank, Bodhan branch and on 10.02.2017 the Bank authorities returned that cheque with a memo stating that cheque is dishonored due to “insufficient funds”. The complainant on 08.03.2017 issued a legal notice to the accused person for payment of borrowed amount and the same is received by the accused on 09.03.2017 but failed to give reply and make payment of the amount. The cause of action started on 25.03.2017 and the complainant sort for legal action against the accused person as he is liable for punishment under section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence under section 138 of NI Act against the accused. After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under

JMFC, Bodhan 3 of 13

CC No.183 of 2017

section 251 of Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation in his vernacular language and the accused having understood the same pleaded not guilty and claim for trial.

4.In order to prove the case of the complainant, the witnesses PW1 examined and exhibits P1 to P6 marked. The details of documents marked are mentioned in the appendix of evidence.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and explained with incriminating evidence against him for which he denied and reported there is defence evidence. The accused filed chief examination affidavit in lieu of chief examination and got examined himself as DW1 and no documents through him.

6.Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the material on record.

7.Now the point for determination is:

1. Whether the accused issued cheque bearing no. 000006 dated 07.12.2016 of Andhra Bank, Bodhan Branch for an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- to the complainant in discharge of his legally enforceable debt ?

2. Whether the cheque presented to the banker within the validity of the cheque?

3. Whether the cheque returned unpaid?

JMFC, Bodhan 4 of 13

CC No.183 of 2017

4. Whether the complainant issued demand notice for payment of said amount U/s 138 of Negotiable instrument Act 1881 to the accused within statutory period?

5. Whether the accused issued the cheque for security purpose to the complainant ?

6. Whether the complainant forged the signature of the accused on the cheque dated 07.12.2016?

7. Whether the accused failed to make payment of the said amount to the complainant within statutory period?

8. Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/s 138 of Negotiable instruments Act?

9. If so, to what relief?

8. To avoid repetition of facts and evidence both shall be considered at once.

Here, in this case to prove the alleged offense, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act.

Evidence on record.

9.PW1 filed chief examination affidavit in lieu of chief examination and reiterated the contents of the complaint. PW1 in his cross examination deposed that he directly gave Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused person on 25.07.2016. The

PW1 denied the suggestions given by accused counsel that the brother of the accused borrowed the amount from the complainant and the accused accompanied his brother and stood as surety, but never borrowed any amount from the complainant. JMFC, Bodhan 5 of 13

CC No.183 of 2017

10.DW1 filed chief examination affidavit in which he submitted that he borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 25.07.2016 by executing a promissory note and while taking the amount the complainant insisted to issue a blank cheque as such he issued a blank cheque bearing no. 000006 dated 07.12.2016 in favour of complainant in his account at Andhra Bank Bodhan

Branch only for security purpose. DW1 further submitted that he repaid the entire amount to the complainant with interest and the complainant after receiving the amount stated that the he misplaced the promissory note, but later the complainant forged his signature on the cheque and filed this false case in order to harass him.

11.DW1 in his cross examination admitted that he borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant. DW1 deposed that he repaid the borrowed amount but the complainant did not returned the cheque. DW1 admitted that he did not send any legal notice to the complainant for not returning the promissory note and cheque. DW1 admitted that he received legal notice from the complainant but he did not send any reply to the said notice. DW1 deposed that in para no.5 of his chief examination affidavit he mentioned that the complainant forged his signature on the cheque.

POINT NO: 1, 5 & 6 :

JMFC, Bodhan 6 of 13

CC No.183 of 2017

1. Whether the accused issued cheque bearing no. 000006 dated 07.12.2016 of Andhra Bank, Bodhan Branch for an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- to the complainant in discharge of his legally enforceable debt ?

5. Whether the accused issued the cheque for security purpose to the complainant ?

6. Whether the complainant forged the signature of the accused on the cheque

dated 07.12.2016?

13.The complainant/PW1 in his evidence stated that on 25.07.2016 the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and executed a promissory note and agreed to pay 24% PA. The accused failed to make payment and on 7.12.2016 issued a cheque bearing no. 000006 for Rs.2,30,000/- drawable at

Andhra bank Bodhan Branch in discharge of his legally enforceable debt. The complainant in his cross examination stated that he directly gave the amount to accused on 25.07.2016 but not his brother. PW1 denied defence taken by the accused during cross examination that accused brother approached the PW1 and borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- and the accused just accompanied his brother and stood as surety. However the accused/DW1 in his evidence admitted that he borrowed the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the PW1 and executed promissory note. In order to support the contention of PW1 he got marked Ex.P3: Original promissory note dated 25.07.2016 which shows DW1 borrowed Rs,2,00,000/- from PW1 and agreed for interest of 24% PA, Ex.P1: Original cheque no. 000006

dated 07.12.2016

JMFC, Bodhan 7 of 13

CC No.183 of 2017

14. The DW1 in his evidence stated that he repaid the borrowed amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- to the PW1 but the PW1 did not returned the promissory note and cheque to him. DW1 stated that he did not obtained any receipt from the PW1 when he made the payment and not sent any legal notice to the PW1 for not returning the promissory note and cheque. DW1 admitted that he taken defence of forgery in his evidence and not taken steps against the PW1.

15.Whenever a cheque is issued the court presumes such cheque is issued in discharge if legally enforceable debt. The complainant discharged his initial burden of proof by adducing sufficient evidence i.e., Ex.P1 and Ex.P3. Now the

Burden shifted on the accused person. The accused initially took defence that in the cross examination of PW1 stated that on 25.07.2016 the accused’s brother borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- form the PW1 and he just accompanied his brother and stood as surety, per contra the accused/DW1 in his evidence admitted that he borrowed Rs,2,00,000/- from PW1 and executed a promissory note where the

PW1 insisted him to give blank cheque and issued a blank cheque to the PW1.

DW1 further claimed that he repaid the amount but the PW1 did not returned his promissory note and cheque. later the PW1 forged the signature of the accused/DW1 and filed this case. DW1 admitted that neither he sent any legal notice to the PW1 for not returning the cheque, promissory note nor taken any steps against the PW1 for forging his signature on the cheque. The DW1 except taking contradictory defence not put forth any reliable evidence to show that he

JMFC, Bodhan 8 of 13

CC No.183 of 2017

issued the cheque for security purpose and the PW1 forged his signatures on the cheque Ex.P1. After considering the exhibits P1, P3 and admissions made by the accused it is proved that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the PW1 and executed a promissory note by agreeing for 24% PA interest and issued a cheque bearing no. 000006 dated 07.12.2016 to the PW1 towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. As the accused took two contradictory defence in the evidence, this court considers that the defence took by the accused/DW1 is not conceivable. The accused failed to adduce cogent evidence to rebut the presumption and burden shifted on him. Accused/DW1 failed to prove that the cheque is issued for security purpose and the PW1 forged the signature of accused on Ex.P1 and filed this case. From the aforesaid discussion it is proved that the cheque has been issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt. Accordingly the point 1,5 and 6 are answered in favour of PW1.

POINT’s No. 2 & 3:

2. “Whether the cheque presented to the banker within the validity of the cheque”?

3. “Whether the cheque returned unpaid”?

16.PW1 in his evidence stated that the accused failed to make payment and issued cheque on 07.12.2016 and he presented the cheque before Andhra Bank on 07.02.2017. On 10.02.2017 the Bank authorities informed him that the cheque JMFC, Bodhan 9 of 13

CC No.183 of 2017

was dishonored due to insufficient funds and returned the cheque along with return memo. Ex.P2 is the original cheque return memo issued by the Andhra

Bank dt.10.02.2017. Accused did not take any defence regarding presentation of cheque.

17.Upon perusal of Ex.P1 it is observed that cheque was isssued on 07.12.2016 and the statutory period for presentation of cheque is three months.

PW1 claimed that he presented the cheque on 07.02.2017, though no voucher or document filed to show that he presented the cheque on 07.02.2017, however

Ex.P2 shows that the cheque returned unpaid with a reason of insufficient funds on 10.02.2017 which means the cheque is presented with in three months. The accused did not take any defence as to presentation of cheque and its dishonour.

From the aforesaid discussion it is proved that the Ex.P1 was presented before the banker within its validity and the same is returned unpaid with the reason of funds insufficient i.e,. Ex.P2 cheque return memo. Accordingly the points no.2 and 3 are answered in favour of PW1.

POINT’s No. 4 and 7:

4. “Whether the complainant issued demand notice for payment of said amount U/s 138 of Negotiable instrument Act 1881 to the accused within statutory period”?

7. “Whether the accused failed to make payment of the said amount to the complainant within statutory period”?

JMFC, Bodhan 10 of 13

CC No.183 of 2017

18.The PW1 in his evidence stated that on 10.02.2017 he received cheque unpaid with the memo and on 08.03.2017 he issued a demand legal notice to the accused which is received by accused on 09.03.2017 but he did not sent any reply to the said demand notice nor paid the said amount, Ex.P4 is the Office copy of Legal notice dt.08.03.2017, Ex.P5 is the postal receipt dt.08.03.2017,

Ex.P6 is the postal Acknowledgment dt.09.03.2017. The accused/DW1 in his evidence admitted that he received the legal notice from PW1 and he did not sent any reply to the legal notice to PW1. As per the admission of the accused, he received the legal notice and have knowledge of dishonored cheque. Inspite of having knowledge of dishonored cheque the accused failed to make payment.

19.From the aforesaid discussion it is proved that the complainant issued demand legal notice Ex.P4 for payment of said amount with in the limitation period to the accused person and the accused/DW1 did not make payment.

Hence the points are answered in favor.

POINT No. 8:

8. “Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/s 138 of Negotiable instruments Act”?

20. From the aforesaid findings on point no 1 to 6, evidence of PW1 and

Ex.P1 to P6, this court is of the opinion that the complainant established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

JMFC, Bodhan 11 of 13

CC No.183 of 2017

POINT NO.9 :

9. If so, to what relief?

21. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. Hence the accused is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.PC.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of September, 2025.

Sd/-Sssss

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

Convict is given a time of one hour for reflection and called again. Heard the convict with regard to the quantum of sentence. He submitted that he is having children and suffering with different ailments and if the sent to jail it would cause hardship to his family as he is the only earning person in the family. Convict further stated that his health is also not good and frequently falling unwell. The convicted prayed to grant only fine as punishment and take lenient view regarding sentence.

The learned counsel for convict requested to invoke the provisions of Probation of offenders act and submitted that the convicted person is frequently falling ill and he is having children, he going to jail would cause hardship to the family members.

Upon considered the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and submissions of the convict, this court is not intended to invoke the sections under Probation of offenders Act.

JMFC, Bodhan 12 of 13

CC No.183 of 2017

upon considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case and considering the economic and social background of the convicted person, this court considers to take lenient view on the convicted person regarding the sentence,

Therefore the accused person sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and shall pay compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- U/s 357 Cr.P.C to the complainant with in three months from the date of judgment for an offence under section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act..

The convicts are informed about his right to free legal aid to prefer appeal. Office is directed to supply a copy of Judgment free of cost to the convict forthwith.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of September, 2025.

-Sd/-/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : PW1: N. Koteshwar Rao

For Defence:

DW1: Kalyan Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Original cheque no. 000006 dated 07.12.2016

JMFC, Bodhan 13 of 13

CC No.183 of 2017

Ex.P2: Original cheque return memo of Andhra bank, Bodhan Branch, dated 10.02.2017 Ex.P3: Original promissory note dated 25.07.2016 Ex.P4: Office copy of legal notice dated 08.03.2017 Ex.P5: Original Postal receipt dated 08.03.2017 Ex.P6: Postal acknowledgment dated 09.03.2017

For Defence :

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

JMFC, Bodhan