Mohammad Asadulla Shareef

Page 1 of 11……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..CC.No.92 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: AT :: MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: Sri Mohammad Asadulla Shareef, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class, Mancherial 0

Monday, this the 04th day of July, 2022.

C.C.No.92 of 2016

Between:- Bhadri Narayana, S/o. Venkata Rajam, Age:57 years, Occ:Singareni employee, R/o. Qr.No.D-78, CCC Township, Naspur, R/m. Mancherial, Mancherial.

...Complainant

//Vs//

K.Pushpalatha, W/o. Dr.K.Satya Parameshwar, R/o. H.No.10-3-282/A/15, Venkatadri Nagar colony, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. …Accused

This case is coming before me today, for final hearing in the presence of Sri. G.Rajesh Goud, Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri. M.M.Ali and K.Murali Krishna Advocates for the Accused and having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1. This matter pertains to an allegation of dishonour of a cheque allegedly issued by the

Accused to the Complainant amounting to an offence punishable Under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The averments of the Complainant are that he is an employee in Singareni Collieries

Company Limited and resident of Naspur Mandal in Mancherial District. The Complainant states that he is acquainted with one Mr. M. Ramesh Babu who was examined as PW-2.

Through him, the Complainant got acquainted with the Accused and her husband/Dr.K.Satya Parameshwar. Due to such acquaintance, the Accused and her husband approached the Complainant at Naspur and borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) from the Complainant on 15/06/2011. The Accused, in turn, executed a promissory note in favour of the Complainant on the same day with the promise to repay the said amount along with an interest at the rate of 2% per month. Subsequently, on 10/07/2011, the Accused again approached the Complainant at his residence in Naspur

Page 2 of 11……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..CC.No.92 of 2016 and borrowed another Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) on the same terms. In turn, another promissory note for the said amount was executed on the same day.

Despite several demands, the Accused did not repay the loan amount. Eventually, on 17/06/2013, the Accused issued a Cheque bearing number 482936, dated:17/06/2013 for

Rs.7,40,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Thousand Only) towards repayment of both the debts. The cheque was presented for encashment at State Bank of Hyderabad, Garmilla

Branch, Mancherial on 17/06/2013. However, it was dishonoured on 25/06/2013 due to “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS” in the account. The Complainant issued a demand notice on 01/07/2013 to the Accused which was served on 09/07/2013. However, the Accused did not adhere to such demand.

3. The Accused was given copies under Section 207 of CrPC. The Accused did not file any counter. Examination was conducted under Section 251 of CrPC where the Accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty.

4. PW-1 filed his chief examination affidavit and got marked ExP1 to ExP8. In the chief examination, the Complainant reiterated the averments stated in the complaint. To support the case of the Complainant, one Mr. M Ramesh Babu was examined as PW-2. In his deposition, PW-2 stated that he knows both the Complainant and the Accused. He confirmed the story of the Complainant and stated that the Accused borrowed two loans of

Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) each, one on 15/06/2011 and second on 10/07/2011, both at an interest of 2% per month. PW-2 further stated that he was present on both occasions and, in fact, scribed both the promissory notes (ExP7 and

ExP8) executed on the same days as such loans were taken.

5. The Accused was examined under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all evidence produced by PW-1. Thereafter, the Accused volunteered to be examined as DW1 under Section 315 of CrPC. In her deposition, she stated that she never visited Naspur. She further stated that her husband/K. Satya Parameshwar, who works at Vanitha Maha

Vidyalaya in Hyderabad, was acquainted with PW-2. She deposed that she ran a

Pharmaceutical business by the name and style of Yagnashri Medicals in Hyderabad.

Page 3 of 11……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..CC.No.92 of 2016

Similarly, PW-2 also ran a medical store in the name and style of Krishnanand Medicals in

Hyderabad. She states that she used to purchase medicines from PW-2’s business. In this course, three promissory notes were issued, out of which two were signed by her and one was signed by her husband. Further, two cheques were drawn of which one was drawn by her and the other by her husband. These promissory notes and cheques were given to PW- 2 through one Mr. Dayanand who deposed as DW-2. She further stated that she has no acquaintance with the Complainant whom she came to know about after this complaint was filed. It was further stated by her that PW-2 filed insolvency proceedings against the

Complainant since he has a due amount of Rs.36,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Only) to him, and PW-2 handed over the blank promissory notes and the cheques to the

Complainant as a method of settling his debts.

6. The DW-2 deposed that from the year 2007 to the year 2012, he worked at Yagnashri

Medicals as Area Sales Manager under the employment of the Accused. He stated that a firm of the Accused used to purchase bulk medicines on wholesale from the firm of PW-2 on credit basis. On the instructions of the Accused, DW-2 handed over three blank promissory notes and two blank signed cheques to PW-2’s firm. Further, he deposed that on the instructions of PW-2, he handed over these blank promissory notes and cheques to the accountant and took an acknowledgement on the receipt letter, marked as ExD2. He further stated that ExD2, which is a communication from Yagnashri Medicals to

Krishnanand Medicals regarding the sending of three promissory notes and two cheques, was written by him and are in his own hand writing. He states that the accountant of

Krishnanand Medicals stamped on the letter dated:10/05/2010 with the official stamp of

Krishnanand Medicals and wrote in his hand writing that he received it on 11/05/2010.

DW-3, who is the Principal of Sarojini Naidu Vanita Maha Vidyalaya, Hyderabad, produced attendance registers for the months of June, 2011 (Morning Session and Evening Session) and June, 2013, and got marked them as ExD11 to ExD14. This was done in an effort to prove that the husband of the Accused attended his duties at Sarojini Naidu Vanita Maha

Vidyalaya, Hyderabad on the dates on which ExP1, ExP7 and ExP8 were issued.

Page 4 of 11……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..CC.No.92 of 2016 7. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the Complainant argued that the

Complainant visited Naspur on 15/06/2011 and 10/07/2011 to borrow Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) each time for the personal necessities of the

Accused. These two loans were obtained by the Accused at an interest of 2% per month.

After repeated demands, the Accused issued a cheque bearing number 482936, dated:

07/06/2013 as full settlement of the two loans. The cheque, ExP1, was presented for encashment and dishonoured. Following this, a demand notice was sent to the Accused to which the Accused did not reply. Hence, the learned counsel contends that an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has taken place.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defence argued extensively to disprove the case of the Complainant. The counsel submitted that:

i. The demand notice ExP4 calls upon the Accused to pay the Cheque amount of Rs.7,40,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Thousand Only) within 10 days of the receipt of this notice. The Counsel contends that as per clause (c) of the Proviso under Section 138 of NI Act, the Accused is entitled to a period of 15 days from the receipt of the notice. Hence, the notice should be considered invalid since it shortens the time prescribed in the statute.

ii. The R.N number of ExP5 is written by hand and it is not printed along with a bar code as such postal receipt should ideally be printed. Hence, ExP5 is fabricated with the R.N number written later.

iii. The ExP6 which is the tracking information obtained from the India Post

Web Site as the R.N number printed on it. However, the postage number which is printed on ExP5 is written by hand on ExP6. Hence, ExP6 is an incomplete document which cannot be relayed upon to establish proper receipt of the demand notice. Further, since ExP6 is a document which is a print-out of the online information, it should be certified under Section 65B of the Evidence Act to be admitted as secondary evidence. The counsel

Page 5 of 11……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..CC.No.92 of 2016 relayed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Harpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 734 to state that a printed copy is not admissible without certificate under Section 65B.

iv. The Counsel argued that the Complainant has not proven a legally enforceable debt. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Vs.

Laxman, 2013 (3) SCC 86, the counsel states that the Complainant should reasonably discharge the burden that the cheque had been issued towards a lawful payment.

v. The counsel further argued that the Accused did not come to Naspur when

ExP1 and P7 were signed, that is on 15/06/2011 and 17/06/2013. Since the

Accused always travels with her husband, her presence at Naspur on either of those two days is not possible since her husband attended his duties at Sarojini

Naidu Vanita Maha Vidyalaya, Hyderabad. To prove the same ExD3 and

ExD4 were produced.

vi. The counsel further stated that ExP7 and ExP8, the two promissory notes do not contain any witness signatures. Hence they should not be relied upon.

vii. An argument was put forth from the Complainant’s side that the Complainant withdrew an of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Only) from his bank account in the month of June, 2009 in order to extend the loan to the

Accused. The same was proved by the production of the bank account statements of the Complainant and marked as ExP9. The counsel for the

Accused contends that it is highly improbable that the cash would be withdrawn from the bank account in the month of June, 2009 when the loan was actually supposed to have been extended in the months of June, 2011 and

July, 2011 when ExP7 and ExP8 are purported to have been executed.

viii. It was submitted by the counsel that ExP1 i.e. the cheque in question was, in fact, issued as a security to ensure regular medical supplies from the

Page 6 of 11……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..CC.No.92 of 2016

Complainant’s medical agency to the Accused’s medical store. To support this contention, ExD2 was produced which is a letter written by the Accused firm to the Complainant’s firm stating that the Accused firm is “sending Three promissory notes and Two cheques signed in blank by the Proprietor Smt.Pushpalatha and by her husband Sri. Dr.K.Satya Parameshwar as desired by Sri. M.Ramesh Babu to secure credit supplies of medicines.” ExD2 was produced as a photocopy after being allowed by this Court in Crl.MP No.312/2018 subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility. It is contended that these promissory notes and cheques were actually issued to PW-2, who misused them by handing them over to PW-1 since PW-2 owed a debt to PW-1. To support this, ExD1 was produced which is an Insolvency Petition on the file of the Hon’ble Court of the VII

Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy by PW-2 against PW-1.

ix. To counter the argument from the Complainant side that PW-2 was involved in the business of Krishnanand Medicals only up to 31/03/2009, but not after, the counsel for the Accused contended that ExD6 which contains Value

Added Tax (VAT) details of the Complainant firm which is obtained through an RTI application shows PW-2 as the owner. Further, ExD8 and ExD9, which are cash receipts issued by Krishnanand Medicals to the Accused firm, were produced to show that PW-2 issued the same even until the month of

November, 2010. Hence, the counsel argued that PW-2 continued to be involved in the business of Krishnanand Medicals.

9. Heard both sides and perused the record. Now, the points for consideration are:- i. Whether the Accused has issued the cheque bearing number 482936 for

Rs.7,40,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Thousand Only)?

ii. Whether the Accused has proved that such cheque was not given in lieu of a legally enforceable debt?

Page 7 of 11……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..CC.No.92 of 2016 iii. Whether the Complainant has proved the offence Under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, beyond all reasonable doubts? If so, to what order?

10.Before the facts of the present case are discussed, it is pertinent to note that to prove an offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the following essentials must be satisfied:

i. The cheque must be drawn by the Accused towards a legally enforceable debt or liability; Further, Section 139 of the NI Act stipulates a rebuttable presumption that such cheque was received by the holder for the discharge of the debt or liability; ii. Such cheque must be presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; iii. The payee must make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; iv. The drawer of the cheque must have failed to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

v. A written Complaint has to be filed with one month of the last date of the aforementioned fifteen-day period.

11.Further, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5

SCC 418 that “Whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an Accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an Accused is “preponderance of probabilities.” It is in this light that points for consideration are hereby discussed.

12. POINT NO. 1

The Complainant contends that ExP1 i.e. cheque bearing number 482936, dated:

17/06/2013 for an amount of Rs.7,40,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Thousand Only) has been drawn by the Accused. This fact, in and by itself, has not been disputed by the

Accused. However, the question is with regard to the purpose for which the cheque was issued since the Complainant claims that it was for the sake of full settlement of two separate loans of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) each extended by the

Complainant to the Accused on 15/06/2011 and 10/07/2011. On the other hand, the

Page 8 of 11……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..CC.No.92 of 2016

Accused claims that the cheque was issued only for the purpose of security to ensure supplies on a credit basis from the Complainant firm to the Accused firm. As the factum the cheque in question, i.e., ExP1, or the signature on it is not in dispute, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.

13. POINT NO. 2:

14. Section 139 of the NI Act stipulates a presumption that a Cheque is issued by the drawer in order to discharge a debt or liability towards its holder. Section 118 (a) further supports it by stating that for every Negotiable Instrument, there is a presumption that it was drawn for consideration. This presumption is rebuttable by the Accused, and as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Basavalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, the standard for such rebuttable is reduced to mere preponderance of probabilities.

15. In the present case the Complainant contends that the ExP1 was issued in full settlement of the two loans of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) each which were extended by him to the Accused. ExP7 and ExP8 has been produced to support such loans. However, the Accused contends that the ExP1 was, in fact, issued to secure the supplies from the Complainant firm to the Accused firm on credit basis. To support this contention, ExD2 which is a communication addressed by the Accused firm to the Complainant firm is produced. This letter states: “we are sending three promissory notes and two cheques signed in blank by the Proprietor Smt. Pushpalatha and by her husband Sri. Dr. K. Satya

Parameshwar as desired by Sri. M Ramesh Babu. The cheque number is 482936 of State Bank of

Hyderabad and cheque number is 482859 of Bank of India to secure credit supplies of medicines and these are valid for one year only”. This letter was sent on 10/05/2010. The note of the bottom left side which reads “receipt on 11/05/2010” along with the stamp of the Krishnanand Medicals goes to show that the three promissory notes and two cheques were received by the

Krishnanand Medicals. ExD8 and ExD9 which are receipts issued by Krishnanand Medicals with a express note that there was a business relationship between the Accused and

Krishnanand medicals in which PW-2 was partner. The deposition of DW-2 also supports this narrative as he states that he handed over the said promissory notes and cheques to

Page 9 of 11……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..CC.No.92 of 2016

Krishnanand Medicals and obtained the receipt marked as ExD2. The cheques to the ExP1 continued to be in the possession of PW-2. However, as things went south for PW-2, he was pushed to file an Insolvency Petition against all persons to whom he owed several debts and liabilities. Since the Complainant was one such creditor of PW-2, it appears that the cheque i.e. ExP1, came in handy as he could comfortably pass it on to the Complainant. The complete support of PW-2 to the case of the Complainant, while they are adversaries in the

Insolvency Petition (ExD1) raises a red flag as to the veracity of the Complainant’s version.

Since PW-2 is a native of Mancherial where the Complainant resides, it is possible that they were also generally acquainted with each other. It does not appear reasonable that the

Accused, who is a resident of Hyderabad and does not have any connection with

Mancherial, would establish any business relations with the Complainant.

16. Furthermore, it seems highly unreasonable that the Complainant would withdraw the net cash in the month of June, 2009 for a loan which he would go on to extend in the months of June, 2011 and July, 2011, well after two years of such withdrawal. The mistake of the Accused was not to collect the three blank promissory notes and two blank signed cheques from PW-2 to prevent any misuse of the same. However, the Accused is not to be punished for such negligence.

17. While Section 139 of the NI Act stipulates a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that it was drawn in order to discharge a debt or liability, such presumption can be rebutted by the Accused. Such rebuttal requires the application of the standard of balance of probabilities. In the light of the aforementioned evidences, the Accused as establish that it is highly probable that the ExP1 was issued only for securing the supplies of credit, and not to discharge any debt or liability. In the result, this point is decided in favour of the Accused.

18. POINT 3:

The learned counsel for the Complainant has contended that all the essentials of

Section 138 of NI Act are fulfilled. While it may be so, the Accused had the ball in this

Page 10 of 11……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..CC.No.92 of 2016

Court to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Since the presumption has been successfully rebutted by the Accused by establishing that the purpose of ExP1 was only to secure supplies, but not to discharge any debt or liability, the essential ingredients for the offence of dishonour of cheque are not entirely proved.

19. After having considered all the records, testimonies, and arguments of both parties, it is not established that the ExP1 was drawn by the Accused to discharge a debt or liability.

Hence, the offence of dishonour of cheque has not taken place. In the result, the Accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of CrPC. The bail bonds, if any, are hereby cancelled.

Typed to my dictation by Copyist, after corrections, pronounced by me on this the 04 th day of July, 2022.

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MANCHERIAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

PW-1: Bhadri Narayana PW-2: M.Ramesh Babu

FOR DEFENCE: DW-1: Pushpalatha DW-2: B.Dayanand Reddy DW-3: V.Chittiraju

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

ExP1 is the Original cheque B.No.482936, dt:17/06/2013 for Rs.7,40,000/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Shanthi Nagar Branch, Hyderabad. ExP2 is the original pay slip dt:17/06/2013. ExP3 is the Cheque return memo, dated:25/06/2013. ExP4 is the office copy of the legal notice, dated:01/07/2013. ExP5 is the Postal Receipt, dated:01/07/2013. ExP6 is the R.P service proof obtained by online (Subject to objection that it is only a print out) ExP7 is the promissory note, dated:15/06/2011. ExP8 is the promissory note, dated:10/07/2011.

Page 11 of 11……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..CC.No.92 of 2016

FOR DEFENCE:

ExD1 is the Insolvency Petition filed in the Court of VII Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar. ExD2 is the Xerox copy of letter dt:10/05/2010 of Yagna Sri Medicals. ExD3 is the certified true copy of attendance register of Sajojini Naidu Vanita Maha Vidyalaya, Hyderabad. ExD4 is the certified true copy of attendance register of Sajojini Naidu Vanita Maha Vidyalaya, Hyderabad. ExD5 is the certified true copy of attendance register aided teachers staff Sajojini Naidu Vanita Maha Vidyalaya, Hyderabad. ExD6 is the letter dated:08/02/2017 (with enclosures three pages) issued by CPO Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad under RTI Act. ExD7 is the letter dated:17/01/2017 (with enclosures three pages) issued by CPO Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad under RTI Act. ExD8 is the original receipt issued by Krishnanand Medicals, dated:21/05/2010. ExD9 is the original receipt issued by Krishnanand Medicals, dated:19/11/2010. ExD10 is the original passbook of A.Pushpalatha. ExD11 is the authorization letter. ExD12 is the verified copy of attendance register for the month of June, 2011 (Evening Session) of Dr. Satya Parameshwar. ExD13 is the verified copy of attendance register for the month of June, 2011 (Morning Session) of Dr. Satya Parameshwar. ExD14 is the verified copy of attendance register for the month of June, 2013.

MOs MARKED:: -NIL-

II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MANCHERIAL

Page 1 of 10……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..CC.No.42 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: AT :: MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: Sri Mohammad Asadulla Shareef, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class, Mancherial

Monday, this the 04th day of July, 2022.

C.C.No.42 of 2016

Between:- Bhadri Laxmi Narayana, S/o. Venkata Rajam, Age:48 years, Occ:Business, R/o. Hamaliwada, Mancherial, Mancherial.

...Complainant

//Vs//

Dr.K.Satya Parameshwar, S/o. Agmaiah, Occ:Reader in Dept. of Neology, Sarojini Naidu Vanita Maha Vidyalaya, Exhibition Grounds, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.10-3-282/A/15, Venkatadri Nagar colony, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. …Accused

This case is coming before me today, for final hearing in the presence of Sri. G.Rajesh Goud, Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri. M.M.Ali and K.Murali Krishna, Advocates for the Accused and having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1. This matter pertains to an allegation of dishonour of a cheque allegedly issued by the

Accused to the Complainant amounting to an offence punishable Under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The averments of the Complainant are that he is a resident of Mancherial and that he is acquainted with one Mr. M. Ramesh Babu who was examined as PW-2. Through him, the

Complainant got acquainted with the Accused. Due to such acquaintance, the Accused approached the Complainant at Naspur and borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh

Fifty Thousand Only) from the Complainant on 15/12/2012. The Accused, in turn, executed a promissory note in favour of the Complainant on the same day with the promise to repay the said amount along with an interest at the rate of 2% per month. Despite several demands, the Accused did not repay the loan amount. Eventually, on 17/06/2013, the

Accused issued a Cheque bearing number 482859, dated: 17/06/2013 for Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) towards repayment of the debt. The cheque

Page 2 of 10……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..CC.No.42 of 2016 was presented for encashment at Andhra Bank, Mancherial on 17/06/2013. However, it was dishonoured on 25/06/2013 due to “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS” in the account. The

Complainant issued a demand notice on 01/07/2013 to the Accused which was served on 04/07/2013. However, the Accused did not adhere to such demand.

3. The Accused was given copies under Section 207 of CrPC. The Accused did not file any counter. Examination was conducted under Section 251 of CrPC where the Accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty.

4. PW1 filed his chief examination affidavit and got marked ExP1 to ExP8. In the chief examination, the Complainant reiterated the averments stated in the complaint. To support the case of the Complainant, one Mr. M Ramesh Babu was examined as PW-2. In his deposition, PW2 stated that he knows both the Complainant and the Accused. He confirmed the story of the Complainant and stated that the Accused borrowed a loan of

Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) from the Complainant at an interest of 2% per month on 15/12/2012. PW-2 further stated that he was present and, in fact, scribed the promissory note (ExP7) executed on the same day as such loan was taken.

5. The Accused was examined under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all evidence produced by PW-1. Thereafter, the Accused volunteered to be examined as DW-1 under Section 315 of CrPC. In his deposition, he was acquainted with PW-2, but is not acquainted with the Complainant. He deposed that his wife / Smt.Pushpalatha ran a

Pharmaceutical business by the name and style of Yagnashri Medicals in Hyderabad.

Similarly, PW-2 also ran a medical business in the name and style of Krishnanand Medicals in Hyderabad. He states that his wife used to purchase medicines from PW-2’s business. In this course, three promissory notes were issued, out of which two were signed by his wife and one was signed by him. Further, two cheques were drawn of which one was drawn by his wife and the other by him. These promissory notes and cheques were given to PW-2 through one Mr. Dayanand who deposed as DW-2. He further stated that he has no acquaintance with the Complainant whom he came to know about after this complaint was filed. It was further stated by him that PW-2 filed insolvency proceedings against the

Page 3 of 10……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..CC.No.42 of 2016

Complainant since he has a due amount of Rs.36,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Only) to him, and PW-2 handed over the blank promissory notes and the cheques to the

Complainant as a method of settling his debts.

6. The DW-2 deposed that from the year 2007 to the year 2012, he worked at Yagnashri

Medicals as Area Sales Manager under the employment of the Accused. He stated that a firm of the Accused used to purchase bulk medicines on wholesale from the firm of PW2 on credit basis. On the instructions of the Accused, DW-2 handed over three blank promissory notes and two blank signed cheques to PW-2’s firm. Further, he deposed that on the instructions of PW-2, he handed over these blank promissory notes and cheques to the accountant and took an acknowledgement on the receipt letter, marked as ExD2. He further stated that ExD2, which is a communication from Yagnashri Medicals to Krishnanand

Medicals regarding the sending of three promissory notes and two cheques, was written by him and are in his own hand writing. He states that the accountant of Krishnanand Medicals stamped on the letter dated:10/05/2010 with the official stamp of Krishnanand Medicals and wrote in his hand writing that he received it on 11/05/2010. DW-3, who is the

Superintendent of Sarojini Naidu Vanita Maha Vidyalaya, Hyderabad, produced attendance registers for the months of December, 2012 and June, 2013, and got marked them as ExD13 and ExD14, respectively. This was done in an effort to prove that the Accused attended his duties at Sarojini Naidu Vanita Maha Vidyalaya, Hyderabad on the dates on which ExP1 and

ExP7 were executed.

7. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the Complainant argued that the

Complainant visited Mancherial on 15/12/2012 to borrow Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three

Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) for the personal necessities of the Accused. The loan was obtained by the Accused at an interest of 2% per month. After repeated demands, the

Accused issued a cheque bearing number 482859, dated: 17/06/2013 as full settlement of the loan. The cheque, ExP1, was presented for encashment and dishonoured. Following this, a demand notice was sent to the Accused to which the Accused did not reply. Hence,

Page 4 of 10……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..CC.No.42 of 2016 the learned counsel contends that an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881 has taken place.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defence argued extensively to disprove the case of the Complainant. The counsel submitted that:

i. The Counsel argued that the Complainant has not proven a legally enforceable debt. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijaya v.

Laxman, 2013 (3) SCC 86, the counsel states that the Complainant should reasonably discharge the burden that the cheque had been issued towards a lawful payment.

ii. The counsel further argued that the Accused did not come to Mancherial when ExP1 and P7 were signed, that is on 15/12/2012 and 17/06/2013. His presence at Mancherial on either of those two days is not possible since attended his duties at Sarojini Naidu Vanita Maha Vidyalaya, Hyderabad. To prove the same, ExD13 and ExD14 were produced.

iii. The counsel further stated that ExP7, the promissory note does not contain any witness signatures. Hence, it should not be relied upon.

iv. An argument was put forth from the Complainant’s side that the Complainant withdrew an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Only) from his bank account in the months of July and August, 2009 in order to extend the loan to the Accused. The same was proved by the production of the bank account statements of the Complainant and marked as ExP9. The counsel for the Accused contends that it is highly improbable that the cash would be withdrawn from the bank account in the months of July and August, 2009 when the loan was actually supposed to have been extended in the month of

December, 2012 when ExP7 is purported to have been executed.

Page 5 of 10……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..CC.No.42 of 2016 v. It was submitted by the counsel that ExP1 i.e. the cheque in question was, in fact, issued as a security to ensure regular medical supplies from the

Complainant’s medical agency to the medical store owned by the wife of the

Accused. To support this contention, ExD2 was produced which is a letter written by the Accused firm to the Complainant’s firm stating that the

Accused firm is “sending Three promissory notes and Two cheques signed in blank by the

Proprietor Smt.Pushpalatha and by her husband Sri. Dr.K.Satya Parameshwar as desired by Sri. M.Ramesh Babu to secure credit supplies of medicines.” ExD2 was produced as a photocopy. It is contended that these promissory notes and cheques were actually issued to PW-2, who misused them by handing them over to PW-1 since PW-2 owed a debt to PW-1. To support this, ExD1 was produced which is an Insolvency Petition on the file of the Hon’ble Court of the VII

Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy by PW-2 against PW-1’s brother / Badri

Narayana.

vi. To counter the argument from the Complainant side that PW-2 was involved in the business of Krishnanand Medicals only up to 31/03/2009, but not after, the counsel for the Accused contended that ExD6 which contains Value

Added Tax (VAT) details of the Complainant firm which is obtained through an RTI application shows PW-2 as the owner. Further, ExD8 and ExD9, which are cash receipts issued by Krishnanand Medicals to the Accused firm, were produced to show that PW-2 issued the same even until the month of

November, 2010. Hence, the counsel argued that PW-2 continued to be involved in the business of Krishnanand Medicals.

9. Heard both sides and perused the record. Now, the points for consideration are:- i. Whether the Accused has issued the cheque bearing number 482859 for

Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand Only)?

Page 6 of 10……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..CC.No.42 of 2016 ii. Whether the Accused has proved that such cheque was not given in lieu of a legally enforceable debt?

iii. Whether the Complainant has proved the offence Under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, beyond all reasonable doubts? If so, to what order?

10.

Before the facts of the present case are discussed, it is pertinent to note that to prove

an offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the following essentials must be satisfied:

i. The cheque must be drawn by the Accused towards a legally enforceable debt or liability; Further, Section 139 of the NI Act stipulates a rebuttable presumption that such cheque was received by the holder for the discharge of the debt or liability; ii. Such cheque must be presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; iii. The payee must make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; iv. The drawer of the cheque must have failed to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

v. A written Complaint has to be filed with one month of the last date of the aforementioned fifteen-day period.

11. Further, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 that “Whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an Accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an Accused is “preponderance of probabilities.” It is in this light that points for consideration are hereby discussed.

POINT NO. 1 12. The Complainant contends that ExP1 i.e. cheque bearing number 482859, dated:

17/06/2013 for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) has been drawn by the Accused. This fact, in and by itself, has not been disputed by the

Accused. However, the question is with regard to the purpose for which the cheque was

Page 7 of 10……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..CC.No.42 of 2016 issued since the Complainant claims that it was for the sake of full settlement of loan of

Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) each extended by the

Complainant to the Accused on 15/12/2012. On the other hand, the Accused claims that the cheque was issued only for the purpose of security to ensure supplies on a credit basis from the Complainant firm to the Accused firm. As the factum of the cheque in question, i.e., ExP1, or the signature on it is not in dispute, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.

POINT NO. 2:

13.Section 139 of the NI Act stipulates a presumption that a Cheque is issued by the drawer in order to discharge a debt or liability towards its holder. Section 118 (a) further supports it by stating that for every Negotiable Instrument, there is a presumption that it was drawn for consideration. This presumption is rebuttable by the Accused, and as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Basavalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, the standard for such rebuttable is reduced to mere preponderance of probabilities.

14. In the present case, the Complainant contends that the ExP1 was issued in full settlement of the loan of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) which was extended by him to the Accused. ExP7 has been produced to support such loan.

However, the Accused contends that the ExP1 was, in fact, issued to secure the supplies from the Complainant firm to the Accused firm on credit basis. To support this contention,

ExD2, which is a communication addressed by the Accused firm to the Complainant firm is produced. This letter states: “we are sending three promissory notes and two cheques signed in blank by the Proprietor Smt. Pushpalatha and by her husband Sri. Dr. K. Satya Parameshwar as desired by Sri. M

Ramesh Babu. The cheque number is 482936 of State Bank of Hyderabad and cheque number is 482859 of Bank of India to secure credit supplies of medicines and these are valid for one year only”. This letter was sent on 10/05/2010. The note of the bottom left side which reads “receipt on 11/05/2010” along with the stamp of the Krishnanand Medicals goes to show that the three promissory notes and two cheques were received by the Krishnanand Medicals. ExD8 and

ExD9 which are receipts issued by Krishnanand Medicals with a express note that there was

Page 8 of 10……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..CC.No.42 of 2016 a business relationship between the Accused and Krishnanand medicals in which PW-2 was partner. The deposition of DW-2 also supports this narrative as he states that he handed over the said promissory notes and cheques to Krishnanand Medicals and obtained the receipt marked as ExD2. The cheques to the ExP1 continued to be in the possession of PW-

2. However, as things went south for PW-2, he was pushed to file an Insolvency Petition against all persons to whom he owed several debts and liabilities. Since the Complainant’s brother was one such creditor of PW-2, it appears that the cheque i.e. ExP1, came in handy as he could comfortably pass it on to the Complainant to settle his liabilities with the

Complainant’s brother. The complete support of PW-2 to the case of the Complainant, while he is an adversaries to the Complainant’s brother in the Insolvency Petition (ExD1) raises a red flag as to the veracity of the Complainant’s version. Since PW-2 is a native of

Mancherial where the Complainant resides, it is possible that they were also generally acquainted with each other. It does not appear reasonable that the Accused, who is a resident of Hyderabad and does not have any connection with Mancherial, would establish any business relations with the Complainant.

15. Furthermore, it seems highly unreasonable that the Complainant would withdraw the net cash in the months of July and August, 2009 for a loan which he would go on to extend in the months of December, 2012 well after three years of such withdrawal. The mistake of the Accused was not to collect the three blank promissory notes and two blank signed cheques from PW-2 to prevent any misuse of the same. However, the Accused is not to be punished for such negligence.

16. While Section 139 of the NI Act stipulates a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that it was drawn in order to discharge a debt or liability, such presumption can be rebutted by the Accused. Such rebuttal requires the application of the standard of balance of probabilities. In the light of the aforementioned evidences, the Accused as establish that it is highly probable that the ExP1 was issued only for securing the supplies of credit, and not to discharge any debt or liability. In the result, this point is decided in favour of the Accused.

Page 9 of 10……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..CC.No.42 of 2016

POINT 3:

17. The learned counsel for the Complainant has contended that all the essentials of

Section 138 of NI Act are fulfilled. While it may be so, the Accused had the ball in his

Court to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Since the presumption has been successfully rebutted by the Accused by establishing that the purpose of ExP1 was only to secure supplies, but not to discharge any debt or liability, the essential ingredients for the offence of dishonour of cheque are not entirely proved.

18. After having considered all the records, testimonies, and arguments of both parties, it is not established that the ExP1 was drawn by the Accused to discharge a debt or liability.

Hence, the offence of dishonour of cheque has not taken place. In the result, the Accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of CrPC. The bail bonds, if any, are hereby cancelled.

Typed to my dictation by Copyist, after corrections, pronounced by me on this the 04 th day of July, 2022.

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MANCHERIAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

PW1: Bhadri Laxmi Narayana PW2: M.Ramesh Babu

FOR DEFENCE: DW-1: K.Satyaparameshwer DW-2: B.Dayanand Reddy DW-3: V.Chittiraju

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

ExP1 is the Original cheque B.No.482859, dt:17/06/2013 for Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Khairatabad Branch, Hyderabad. ExP2 is the Cheque return memo, dated:20/06/2013. ExP3 is the office copy of the legal notice, dated:01/07/2013. ExP4 is the Postal Receipt, dated:01/07/2013.

Page 10 of 10……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..CC.No.42 of 2016

ExP5 is the postal receipt dated:01/07/2013. ExP6 is the R.P service proof obtained by online (Subject to objection that it is only a print out) ExP7 is the promissory note, dated:15/12/2012. ExP8 is the promissory note, dated:09/07/2013. ExP9 is the bank account statement of PW-1.

FOR DEFENCE:

ExD1 is the Certified Copy of Insolvency Petition filed in the Court of VII Senior Civil

Judge, Rangareddy, District at L.B. Nagar.

ExD2 is the Certified Copy of letter dt:10/05/2010 of Yagna Sri Medicals. ExD3 is the certified true xerox copy of attendance register of Sajojini Naidu Vanita Maha Vidyalaya, Hyderabad. ExD4 is the certified true xerox copy of attendance register of Sajojini Naidu Vanita Maha Vidyalaya, Hyderabad. ExD5 is the certified true copy of attendance register aided teachers staff Sajojini Naidu Vanita Maha Vidyalaya, Hyderabad. ExD6 is the certified copy of VAT registration (3 pages) dated:08.02.2017. ExD7 is the certified copy of letter dated:17/01/2017 (with enclosures three pages) issued by CPO Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad under RTI Act. ExD8 is the certified copy of receipt issued by Krishnanand Medicals, dated:21/05/2010. ExD9 is the certified copy receipt issued by Krishnanand Medicals, dated:19/11/2010. ExD10 is the certified copy of Bank Account Passbook of A.Pushpalatha. ExD11 is the certified copy of account statement of Krishnanand Medicals from 01.04.2010 to 02.08.2010. ExD12 is the authorisation letter dated:17.09.2019 issued by Sarojini Naidu Vanita Maha Vidyalaya, Hyderabad ExD13 is the verified copy of attendance register for the month of December, 2012 of Dr. Satya Parameshwar. ExD14 is the verified copy of attendance register for the month of June, 2013 of Dr.Satya Parameshwar.

MOs MARKED:: -NIL-

II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MANCHERIAL

Page 1 of 8……………………………………………..………………………………………………………………..…………………..CC.No.279 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: AT :: MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: Sri.Mohammad Asadulla Shareef, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class, Mancherial Friday, this the 28th day of June, 2022.

C.C.No.279 of 2018

Between:- Gudise Ashok, S/o. Rajaiah, Age:28 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.4-71, Koteshwar Rao Palle, Mandamarri, Mancherial.

...Complainant

//Vs//

Surimilla Lilly Rani, W/o.Manohar, Age:55 years, Occ:Government Employee in Health Department, R/o.H.No.4-206, Uthkoor, Luxettipet, Mancherial District. …Accused

This case is coming before me today, for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Akula Ravinder, Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri. N.Laxmi Rajam, Advocate for the Accused and having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1. This is a case resulting from a complaint alleging a dishonour of a cheque purported to have been issued by the Accused to the Complainant amounting to an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The averments of the Complaint are that the Complainant and the Accused are acquainted with each other, based on which the Accused requested the Complainant for a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) to meet her urgent family and personal necessities. The Complainant agreed to the request and, on 10/08/2015, provided a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) at the interest of 2% per month. In return, the Accused executed a Promissory Note marked as ExP1 for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees

Two Lakhs Only) in the presence of two persons namely Ch.Ramakistaiah and J.Laxmaiah.

Despite repeated demands of the Complainant, the Accused did not repay the loan amount.

However, on 26/09/2017, the Accused issued a cheque bearing number 165900,

dated:26/09/2017 for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) drawn on the State Bank of

India, Luxettipet Branch in favour of the Complainant. The said cheque was deposited for encashment at Gayathri Co-Operative Urban Bank, Mancherial Branch. However, the same was dishonoured due to the reason: “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”. On 20/10/2017, the

Complainant issued a legal notice to the Accused demanding the payment of the cheque amount. The notice was served on the Accused on 23/10/2017. The Accused issued a

Page 2 of 8……………………………………………..………………………………………………………………..…………………..CC.No.279 of 2018 reply notice to the Complainant on 27/10/2017 denying the truth of the contents of the legal notice. Following this, the Complainant filed the complaint alleging an offence under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

3. The Accused was given copies Under Section 207 of CrPC. The Accused did not file any counter. Examination of the Accused was conducted Under Section 251 of CrPC where the Accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty.

4. PW-1 filed his chief-examination affidavit and got marked ExP1 to ExP8. The

Accused was examined under Section 313 of CrPC in which she denied all evidence produced by PW1. Thereafter, the Accused volunteered to be examined as DW-1 under

Section 315 of CrPC. In her deposition, she stated that she does not know PW-1 and that she never raised a loan from PW-1. She also denied that ExP1 and ExP2 contain her signatures. She got marked ExD1 and ExD2, which are the extract attendance register for the months of August, 2015 and September, 2017 respectively to prove that she was attending her work on the days ExP1 and ExP2 are alleged to have been signed. Further, in support of the defence of the Accused, DW-2, who is an Asha Worker, deposed before the

Court that on 10/08/2015, the day on which the ExD1 is purported to have been executed, the Accused attended her duties at Thallapet Primary Health Centre. Further, in an effort to add more weight to the defence, DW-3 who is a Lab Technician in the Health Department deposed before the Court that on 26/09/2017, he attended his duties from 09.00 am to 04.00 pm and DW-1 also attended the office during this time.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record. Now, the points for consideration are:

i. Whether the Accused has issued the cheque bearing No. 165900 for

Rs.3,00,000/-?

ii. Whether the Accused has proved that such Cheque was not given in lieu of a

legally enforceable debt?

iii. Whether the Complainant has proved the offence under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has taken place, beyond all reasonable doubt? If so, to what order?

6.

Before the facts of the present case are discussed, it is pertinent to note that to

prove an offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the following essentials must be satisfied:

i. The cheque must be drawn by the Accused towards a legally enforceable debt or liability; Further, Section 139 of the NI Act stipulates a rebuttable presumption that such cheque was received by the holder for the discharge of the debt or liability;

Page 3 of 8……………………………………………..………………………………………………………………..…………………..CC.No.279 of 2018 ii. Such cheque must be presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; iii. The payee must make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; iv. The drawer of the cheque must have failed to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

v. A written Complaint has to be filed with one month of the last date of the aforementioned fifteen-day period.

7. Further, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 that “Whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an Accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an Accused is “preponderance of probabilities.” It is in this light that points for consideration are hereby discussed.

8. Heard both the sides. The learned counsel for the Complainant argued that the

Complainant had issued a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) on an interest of (2%) per month on 10/08/2015 due to which ExP1 was executed. Further, since the loan remained unpaid, the Accused issued a cheque bearing number 165900 for

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) on 26/09/2017 which was dishonoured for was of Sufficient Funds. The Complainant has issued a legal notice to the Accused demanding the payment of the cheque amount. The notice was successfully served on 23/10/2017.

However, the Accused did not make any payment. Hence, the counsel contends that an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has taken place.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defence submitted that the financial position of the Complainant was not sufficient enough to extend a loan for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) since the Complainant works as an Agricultural tenant. The counsel further pointed out the apparent discrepancy between the chief examination and the cross-examination of PW-1. The PW-1 states in his chief examination that he is acquainted with the Accused, while in his cross-examination, he states that he had no prior acquaintance with the Accused, but the Accused was introduced to him by Ch.Ramakistaiah and

Laxmaiah. According to the learned counsel, this conflict should play an important role in the determination of the veracity of the contention of the Complainant. Further, it was argued that ExD1 and ExD2, which are said to be the attendance registers for the months of

August 2015 and September 2017 from the workplaces of the Accused. Based on these two

Page 4 of 8……………………………………………..………………………………………………………………..…………………..CC.No.279 of 2018 documents, the learned counsel contended that the Accused was present at her workplace on 10/08/2015 and 26/09/2017, due to which the Accused could not have either executed the

Promissory Note (ExP1) or issued the cheque (ExP2).

10. Having considered all the arguments put forth by both the counsels for the

Complainant and the Accused, the three points stated above are hereby discussed.

POINT NO. 1 11. The Complainant contends that the cheque bearing number 165900, dated:

26/09/2017 for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only), marked as ExP1, has been drawn by the Accused. However, the signature on the cheque is denied by the Accused in her chief examination as DW1. In the cross-examination, DW-1 stated that she maintains uniformity in her signature and can identify her signature. When confronted with the signatures on her chief examination, her examination under Section 251 of

CrPC, and her examination under Section 313 of CrPC, she stated that these signatures do not belong to her. On the other hand, she admitted her signature on ExP7 which is an acknowledgement of having received the demand notice. It appears that in an effort to refute the case, the Accused went on a spree of denying several signatures including those that she made in this very Court on the examinations done under Section 251 of

CrPC and Section 313 of CrPC. To ascertain whether the signature on ExP2 is, in fact, the signature of the Accused, Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872 gives the Court wide powers to compare the same with admitted signatures. The Accused has admitted her signature on ExP7 and the Memo of Appearance filed by her appointing counsel on her behalf. Further, the cross-examination itself also contains her signatures. Taking these signatures as admitted authentic and genuine signatures, the comparison has been made with the signature on ExP2. It appears clear to the naked eye that there is sufficient resemblance and similarity with the signature on ExP2. Hence, it can be concluded that

ExP2 was signed by Accused. The denial of several signatures by the Accused appears to be an attempt to deny any liability arising out of making such signatures. In the result, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.

POINT NO. 2:

12. Section 139 of the NI Act stipulates a presumption that a Cheque is issued by the drawer in order to discharge a debt or liability towards its holder. Section 118 (a) further supports it by stating that for every Negotiable Instrument, there is a presumption that it was drawn for consideration. This presumption is rebuttable by the Accused, and as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Basavalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, the standard for such rebuttable is reduced to a mere preponderance of probabilities.

Page 5 of 8……………………………………………..………………………………………………………………..…………………..CC.No.279 of 2018 13. In the present case, the Complainant has produced ExP1 – the Promissory Note – to show that a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) was taken by the

Accused from the Complainant and ExP1 was executed by the Accused in return.

Although in the cross-examination, DW-1 stated that the signature on ExP1 was not made by her, a similar analysis as done before shows that the signature has a striking resemblance with admitted signatures on ExP7, the Memo of Appearance, and at the bottom of the cross-examination itself. Even otherwise, since the presumption under

Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stipulates that a cheque is issued in discharge of debt or liability has to be rebutted by the Accused, the existence of a

Promissory Note can be said to be inconsequential. Except for a straight-out denial of the debt, the Accused has not produced any evidence to show that she did not issue the cheque in lieu of her debt or liability. In this regard, the main defence of the Accused is that she was attending her work at Kotapalli Primary Health Centre on 26/09/2017 the day on which the cheque was drawn. In support of this, the Accused produced ExD2 which is the attendance register of Kotapalli Primary Health Centre for the month of

September 2017, in which she appears to have signed on the day of 26/09/2017.

Further, DW-3 who is a Lab Technician in Kotapalli Primary Health Centre testified that the Accused attended her duties on 26/09/2017 from 09.00 am to 04.00 pm. While this may be true that the Accused did attend her duties from 09.00 am to 04.00 pm on 26/09/2017, it must be noted that this accounts only for a period of 07 hours on that day. It cannot be denied that a cheque can be drawn before or after office hours on 26/09/2017. Since the Accused has accounted for no more than a period of 07 hours on 26/09/2017, the Accused has failed to adequately rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the result, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.

POINT NO.3:

14. The case of the Complainant is that ExP2 was issued by the Accused, whereas the

Accused has denied her signature on the same. The Complainant contends that a cheque was drawn towards a legally enforceable debt, it was presented to the bank within the validity period, it was returned for insufficiency of funds, a demand notice was sent within thirty days of the receipt of information from the bank, and that the Complaint was filed within a fifteen-day period of the reply notice from the Accused. Considering the records at hand, that is the ExP1 to P8, the Complainant has proved his averments.

As the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was invoked, the Accused could not rebut such presumption.

Page 6 of 8……………………………………………..………………………………………………………………..…………………..CC.No.279 of 2018 15. After having considered all the records, testimonies, and arguments of both parties, it is established that the Accused signed and issued ExP2 in lieu of a legally enforceable debt and the ExP2 was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account. Therefore, the Accused is proved guilty of the offence under Section 138 r/w Section 141 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the result, the Accused is hereby convicted Section 255 (2) of CrPC for the said offence.

Typed to my dictation by Copyist, after corrections and pronounced by me on this the 28 th day of

June, 2022.

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MANCHERIAL

1. The convict is heard on the quantum of sentence. She requested the court to be lenient in sentencing since she is an elderly woman and a healthcare worker. Taking the circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of Section 360 of CrPC or Section 3 & 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, her position in life and society must be considered in deciding the quantum of the sentence.

2. Hence, a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) is imposed on the Accused, in default of which the Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Three

Months. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Somnath Sarkar v. Utpal Basu Mallick and

Another, 2013 (12) SCALE 484, held that compensation may be given under Section 357 (1) (b) of CrPC to the Complainant out of the fine amount so levied. Accordingly, the entire fine amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) being levied shall be paid to the Complainant as compensation.

Typed to my dictation by Copyist, after corrections, pronounced by me on this the 28 th day of June, 2022.

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MANCHERIAL

Page 7 of 8……………………………………………..………………………………………………………………..…………………..CC.No.279 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

PW-1: Gudise Ashok

FOR DEFENCE: DW-1: Surimilla Lilly Rani DW-2: K.Panchakula – witness DW-3: P.Vijay Kumar – witness

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

ExP1: Original Promissory Note, dated:10/08/2015 for Rs.2,00,000/-. ExP2: Original Cheque bearing number 165900, dt:26/09/2017 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Luxettipet Branch. ExP3: Original Pay Slip dated:26/09/2017, issued by Gayathri Bank, Mancherial. ExP4: Original Cheque return memo issued by Gayathri Bank, Mancherial dt:27/04/17. ExP5: Legal Notice, dated: 20/10/2017. ExP6: Original Postal Receipt, dated:20/10/2017. ExP7: Original Acknowledgment card, dated:23/10/2017. ExP8: Reply notice, date:27/10/2017 got issued by accused.

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL - ExD1: Extract Attendance Register for the month of August, 2015. ExD2: Extract Attendance Register for the month of September, 2017.

MOs MARK ED:: - NIL -

II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MANCHERIAL

// True Copy//

II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MANCHERIAL

Page 8 of 8……………………………………………..………………………………………………………………..…………………..CC.No.279 of 2018

Page No. 1 of 7 CC.No. 463 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, LUXETTIPET

AT :: LUXETTIPET PRESENT: Sri. Mohammad Asadulla Shareef Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class Luxettipet Friday, this the 3rd day of March, 2023

CC. No. 463 of 2017

Between:-

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Dandepalli.

.… Complainant //And//

Embadi Shankaraiah s/o Rajaiah, Age: 39 years; Caste: Perika, Occ: Agriculture; R/o Chinthapalli village.

…. Accused.

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the state and Sri. Akkala Sridhar advocate, learned counsel for the accused, had been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

1. This case concerns an allegation against the accused that he caused the death of the deceased and grevious injuries to another due to this rash and negligent driving, thereby committing an offence under Sections 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act.

2. The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution are that on 28.09.2017, at around 6 PM, the accused drove his motor cycle bearing number TS 01 EC 4015 near the Church on

BT Road in Nelki Venkatapur village in a rash and negligent manner and crashed into the motor cycle of the deceased bearing number TS 19 5234. The collision resulted in the deceased falling on the road and receiving severe injuries on his head. He was

JFCM

Page No. 2 of 7 CC.No. 463 of 2017 shifted to the Government Hospital, Luxettipet, and thereafter, as he was being shifted to a hospital in Karimnagar, he succumed to the injuries. The pillion rider on the motor cycle of the accused, LW15, received grevious injuries. PW1, the maternal uncle of the deceased, lodged a report with the Police against the accused. The Police registered a case vide Cr. No. 147/2017 against the accused for the offence under

Sections 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 196 of the Motor

Vehicles Act. After the completion of investigation, the PW16 filed a chargesheet based on which this Court took cognizance against the accused under Sections 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, copies were furnished to them under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. He was examined under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under Sections 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. The Prosecution produced PW1 to PW16 and got marked ExP1 to ExP13 in support of its case. PW1 is the complainant who deposed that the deceased, his son-in-law, used to frequent from his village, Kasipelli, to Luxettipet to travel to his job as a recovery agent for Muthoot Finance. On 28.09.2017, as he was returning from

Kasipet, the accused crashed into his motor cycle near the Church in Nelki

Venkatapur village causing fatal injuries and death of the deceased. PW2, the father of the deceased and PW3 and PW4, friends of the deceased, rushed to the Hospital as they were informed of the accident. PW5 deposed that he was present at the scene of the accident and witnessed the accused come in the opposite direction in a wrong route and crash into the deceased. PW6 is the photographer. PW7 and PW9 heard the sounds of the motor cycles colliding and rushed to the spot of the accident to find the deceased on the ground. Since they did not support the narrative of the Prosecution, both PW7 and PW9 were declared hostile by the Prosecution. PW8 and PW10 deposed that they had gone out of her house to see Bathukamma festival and saw that the motor cycle of the accused, along with a pillion rider, collided into the motor cycle of the deceased. PW11 is a witness to the Crime Detail Form and Rough Sketch, marked as ExP8. PW12 is a witness to the Inquest Panchnama. PW13 is the operator

JFCM

Page No. 3 of 7 CC.No. 463 of 2017 of a motor cycle consultancy who sold the motor vehicle to the accused. PW14 is the

Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the motor cycle of the accused. PW15 is the

Civil Assistant Surgeon who conducted Post Mortem Examination of the deceased and also treated LW15, the pillion rider. PW16 is the investigating officer who reiterated the contents of the chargsheet. The Prosecution gave up the remaining List

Witnesses. After the Prosecution evidence closed, the accused was examined under

Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which he denied all evidence of the

Prosecution Witnesses and reported no evidence from his side.

4. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor reiterated the contents of the chargesheet and put forth evidences from the testimonies of the witness and exhibits marked to prove that the accused is guilty of the offences charged. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is innocent since there is no basis to establish that he was rash or negligent. The counsel further argued that there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses and that none of the witnesses have deposed any evidence to prove that the accused was responsible for the accident.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record. The point for determination is whether the

Prosecution has proved that the accused has committed the offence under Sections 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT

6. The Prosecution case is that the accused drove his motor cycle in a rash or negligent manner. It must be noted here that Section 304A requires the accused to be rash or negligent. Being rash is to be reckless to the conseuquences of an act and being neglient is to not take due care and caution while doing the act. It is in this light that the Prosecution has to prove that the accused was either rash or negligent. To see whether this has been established requires an analysis of all the evidence produced.

7. Out of all the witnesses produced by the Prosecution, three witnesses have given testimonies which concern the guilt of the accused. These are PW5, PW8, and PW10.

As far as PW5 is concerned, he deposed that he was present at the scene of the

JFCM

Page No. 4 of 7 CC.No. 463 of 2017 accident and saw that the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle towards

Kasipelli, while the accused was coming in the opposite direction in a wrong route and crashed into the deceased. It is important to note that, as per PW5, the accused was riding his motor cycle in the wrong route. This is also supported by ExP13, the

Rough Sketch drawn in the presence of PW11 who signed on it as a witness. The

ExP13 shows that the place of the accident was on the right side of the road when seen from the perspective of Dandepalli to Luxettipet route. This implies that the deceased, who was riding from Luxettipet to Dandepalli, was on the left side of the road, while the accused, who was riding from Dandepalli to Luxettipet, was on the right side of the road. PW8, who witnessed the accident, supported this narrative by stating that she saw the deceased coming from Luxettipet to Dandepalli on the proper way. She also deposed that the accused dashed into the motor cycle of the deceased and not the other way round. This is supported by PW10 who also stated that the accused was the one who crashed into the deceased, although he stated that he cannot identify the rider.

8. The defence has tried to challenge the Prosecution evidence. They managed to extract an omission from PW3 who stated that the accused was in a drunken state, although he had not stated the same in his statement to the Police under Section 161 of the

Criminal Procedure Code. Nonetheless, the defence did not use its opportunity to challenge PW8 in cross-examination even as the witness made statements of incriminating nature against the accused. Further, the defence did not counter the culpability of the accused in the depositions of PW5 and PW10.

9. Having considered all the evidence, it appears that the accused was riding his motor cycle on the right side of the road instead of the left side of the road. This is supported by the eye-witnesses as well as ExP13, the Rough Sketch. Riding the motor cycle on the wrong side of the road and causing a collision which results in a fatal fall of the deceased amounts to an act done with both lack of due care as well as indifference to the consequences. This is sufficient to prove that the accused was rash and negligent in the way he rode his motor cycle and caused the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased and grevious injuries to his own pillion rider. Hence, the Prosecution

JFCM

Page No. 5 of 7 CC.No. 463 of 2017 has proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused has committed an offence under Section 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. However, there has been no evidence produced to prove the offence under Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the entire trial revolved around only Sections 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal

Code.

10.In this light, the accused is convicted for the offences under Section 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code under Section 255(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

LUXETTIPET.

11.The convict is heard on the quantum of sentence. He submits that he is the sole bread earner of his family and has to support his wife and daughters. Hence, he requested the court to be lenient in sentencing. The provisions of Section 360 of CrPC or Section 3 & 4 of Probation of Offenders Act are not being invoked since this is a case of a road accident.

12.Considering all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the position of the convict, the convict is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One and Half Months for the offence under Section 304A and Half Month for the offence under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist and after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3 rd day of March, 2023.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUMJUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

LUXETTIPET.

JFCM

Page No. 6 of 7 CC.No. 463 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1 : K. Chiranjeevi None

PW-2 : B. Sathaiah

PW-3 : G. Manoj

PW-4 : Thota Santhosh

PW-5 : G. Dinesh Kumar

PW-6 : Goli Thirupathi

PW-7 : Kadari Narsaiah

PW-8 : K. Sandhya

PW-9 : S. Prabakar

PW-10 : S. Soundarya

PW-11 : Ashadi Mosha

PW-12 : Thota Shankaraiah

PW-13 : G. Laxman

PW-14 : Nalla Prathyusha

PW-15 : Dr. E Shekar (Civil Assistant surgeon)

PW-16 : T. Sanjeev (Inspector of Police Mancharial Rural)

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 : Ex.P1 is Report. Nil

Ex.P2 : Ex.P2 is 3 Photographs

Ex.P3 : Ex.P3 is 3 Photographs

Ex.P4 : Ex.P4 is 3 Photographs

Ex.P5 : Ex.P5 is CD

Ex.P6 : Ex.P6 is relevant portion of Sec.161

Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P7 : Ex.P7 is relevant portion of Sec.161

Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P8 : Ex.P8 is CDF and rought sketch

JFCM

Page No. 7 of 7 CC.No. 463 of 2017

Ex.P9: Ex.P9 is inquest panchanama

Ex.P10: Ex.P10 is MVI report

Ex.P11: Ex.P11 is medical certificate of Thumma Anjaiah

Ex.P12: Ex.P12 is PME report

Ex.P13: Ex.P13 is Rough Sketch.

MOs Marked

NIL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

LUXETTIPET.

JFCM

Page No. 1 of 6 CC.No. 304 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, LUXETTIPET

AT :: LUXETTIPET PRESENT: Sri. Mohammad Asadulla Shareef Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class Luxettipet Friday, this the 3rd day of March, 2023

CC. No. 304 of 2017

Between:-

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Dandepalli.

.… Complainant //And//

Ratnam Balaraju s/o Pochaiah, Age: 32 years; Caste: SC Nethakani, Occ: Car Driver; R/o Peddapet village.

…. Accused.

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the state and Sri. E Rajeswar Rao advocate, learned counsel for the accused, had been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

1. This case concerns an allegation against the accused that he caused the death of the deceased and grevious injuries to few other persons due to this rash and negligent driving, thereby committing an offence under Sections 304A, 337, and 338 of the

Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution are that on 22.05.2017, at around 8 AM, the accused drove his car bearing no. AP 09 CG 6959 on the GP Road at the outskirts of Madhapur village in a rash and negligent manner. He reached a culvert, which was arguably narrow, and after he crossed the same, he collided with an Auto Rickshaw bearing no. AP 01 Y 1952. The deceased was sitting next to the driver on the right

JFCM

Page No. 2 of 6 CC.No. 304 of 2017 side of the Auto Rickshaw and received a direct impact from the collision causing his death. The PW1, the driver of the Auto Rickshaw and the brother of the deceased, lodged a report with the Police against the accused. The Police registered a case vide

Cr. No. 77/2017 against the accused for the offence under Sections 304A, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. After the completion of investigation, the PW16 filed a chargesheet based on which this Court took cognizance against the accused under

Sections 304A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, copies were furnished to them under Section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code. He was examined under Section 251 of the Criminal

Procedure Code for the offence under Sections 304A, 337, and 338 of Indian Penal

Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. The Prosecution produced PW1 to PW17 and got marked ExP1 to ExP21 in support of its case. PW1 is the complainant who deposed that he was the driver of the Auto

Rickshaw and that the accused came in a car from the opposite direction and crashed into his Auto Rickshaw. PW2 and PW3 are relatives of the deceased who rushed to the Hospital as they were informed of the accident. PW4 went to the place of accident and helped to shift the deceased in a Government Ambulance. PW5 is the photographer who took pictures of the dead body and the scene of offence. PW6 and

PW7 were proposed as eye witnesses to the accident, but since they did not support the case of the Prosecution, they were declared hostile by the Prosecution. PW8, along with PW11, were passengers of the Auto Rickshaw who was seated on the back side of the Auto Rickshaw. PW9 was slated to be a witness for the Crime Detail Form, but did not support the Prosecution and was declared as hostile by the Prosecution. PW10 is a witness to the scene of offence Panchnama. PW12 is the previous owner of the car which was sold by him to the accused. PW13 is a witness to the Inquest Panchnama conducted over the body of the deceased. PW14 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon who treated PW1 / Complainant as an out-patient. PW15 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon who verified the injuries of PW8 and PW11 and issued medical certificates to them.

PW16 is the Investigating Officer who reiterated the contents of the chargsheet. PW17 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected both the car and the Auto Rickshaw. The

Prosecution gave up the remaining List Witnesses. After the Prosecution evidence

JFCM

Page No. 3 of 6 CC.No. 304 of 2017 closed, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which he denied all evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses and reported no evidence from his side.

4. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor reiterated the contents of the chargesheet and put forth evidences from the testimonies of the witness and exhibits marked to prove that the accused is guilty of the offences charged. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is innocent since there is no basis to establish that he was rash or negligent. The counsel further argued that there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses and that none of the witnesses have deposed any evidence to prove that the accused was responsible for the accident.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record. The point for determination is whether the

Prosecution has proved that the accused has committed the offence under Sections 304A, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT

6. The Prosecution case is that the accused drove his car in a rash or negligent manner. It must be noted here that Section 304A requires the accused to be rash or negligent.

Being rash is to be reckless to the conseuquences of an act and being neglient is to not take due care and caution while doing the act. It is in this light that the Prosecution has to prove that the accused was either rash or negligent. To see whether this has been established requires an analysis of all the evidence produced.

7. Out of all the witnesses produced by the Prosecution, four witnesses have given testimonies which concern the guilt of the accused. These are PW1, PW8, PW10, and

PW11. As far as PW1 is concerned, he is the driver of the Auto Rickshaw and stated that the accused drove his car from the opposite direction and dashed into his Auto

Rickshaw after about 15 metres of the culvert. While the ExP2 to ExP4 show that the two vehicles were coming from opposite directions towards eachother, there is nothing to show that either of these vehicles was using the wrong lane. PW1 has not stated whether the accused was driving his car on the wrong side of the road, but has simply stated that he was coming from the opposite direction. It should be noted here

JFCM

Page No. 4 of 6 CC.No. 304 of 2017 that the collision was on the right side of both the vehicles, i.e., the right side of the car had collided with the right side of the Auto Rickshaw. This shows that, perhaps, both the vehciles were using their only lanes, but were simply too close to pass by without a contact. The next question is whether the culvert was so narrow that only one vehicle could pass by at a time. However, this question would arise only if the collision had happened at the culvert itself, and not after crossing the culvert. In any case, a perusal of ExP2 to ExP4 – the photographs of the scene of offence – shows that the culvert is wide enough to accomodate both vehicles. PW10, a witness to the scene of offence Panchnama stated that the culvert was narrow and it had some road work going on with gravel heaps on the side of the road. However, the ExP2 to PW4 do not show any such road work or gravel heaps. Even if they were present, it does not appear that they would have caused any obstruction to the free passing of vehicles.

8. Another crucial aspect comes from the testimony of PW8, a passenger in the back side of the Auto Rickshaw. She stated that she is unable to state as to whose fault caused the accident. This lack of certainty of a passenger of the Auto Rickshaw makes it difficult to ascribe the blame on the accused. Moreover, PW11, another such passenger of the Auto Rickshaw, deposed that six passengers sat in the backside while the deceased sat with the driver, making a total of eight person in the Auto Rickshaw.

However, she did not agree to the suggestion that the overloading of the Auto

Rickshaw had caused the accident. Nonetheless, she too states that the car was coming from the opposite direction without specifying if it was in the wrong direction.

9. Having considered all the evidences, it appears diffucult to place the responsibility on the accused for causing the accident. The crucial element in all three offences –

Section 304A, 337, and 338 – is the rash or negligent driving by the accused. Since this is not established, it is can be stated that the Prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has committed any of the offences for which he was charged. Hence, the guilt is not proven beyond all reasonable doubt. For this reason, the accused is

JFCM

Page No. 5 of 6 CC.No. 304 of 2017 acquitted of all charges under Section 255(1). Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled in six months from today.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist and after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3 rd day of March, 2023.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

LUXETTIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW-1 : B. Venkatesh None PW-2 : B. Thirupathi PW-3 : B. Lalitha PW-4 : G. Sudhakar PW-5 : V. Rajagopal Rao PW-6 : Milkuri Narayana PW-7 : Milkuri Mallesh PW-8 : Ramanaboina Soniya PW-9 : Vemula Ramanna PW-10 : Kammala Sagar PW-11 : Donujula Gangabavani PW-12 : Borlakunta Durgaiah PW-13 : Pittal Hanumandlu PW-14 : O. Sunitha Rani PW-15 : Dr. E Shekar PW-16 : T. Sanjeev PW-17 : G. Vivekanand Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 : Ex.P1 is Report. Nil Ex.P2 : Ex.P2 is 8 Photographs Ex.P3 : Ex.P3 is 8 Photographs Ex.P4 : Ex.P4 is 8 Photographs Ex.P5 : Ex.P5 is 8 Photographs

JFCM

Page No. 6 of 6 CC.No. 304 of 2017

Ex.P6 : Ex.P6 is 8 Photographs Ex.P7 : Ex.P7 is 8 Photographs Ex.P8 : Ex.P8 is 8 Photographs Ex.P9 : Ex.P9 is 8 Photographs Ex.P10 : Ex.P10 is CD Ex.P11: Ex.P11 is relevant portion of 161 statement Ex.P12: Ex.P12 is relevant portion of 161 statement Ex.P13: Ex.P13 is signature on CDF Ex.P14: Ex.P14 is CDF along with rough Sketch Ex.P15: Ex.P15 is inquest panchanama Ex.P16: Ex.P16 is medical certificate of injured Borlakunta Venkatesh Ex.P17: Ex.P17 is PME report Ex.P18: Ex.P17 is the medical certificate of Ramanaboina Sonia, D/o. Buchaiah Ex.P19: Ex.P18 is the medical certificate of Donojula Ganga Bhavani, D/o. Sathaiah. Ex.P20: Ex.P20 is the FIR Ex.P21: Ex.P21 is MVI report

MOs Marked

NIL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

LUXETTIPET.

JFCM