Sri Mohammed Nizamuddin

CA.171/2017 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

SECUNDERABAD

Present: Mohammed Nizamuddin, Spl. Judge for Trial of Offences Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cum- VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge Secunderabad

WEDNESDAY THE THIRD DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.171 of 2017

From which court this XIV Addl. Judge-cum-XVIII Addl. Chief appeal is preferredMetropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

No. of the case in that C.C.No.736/2015 court

Number of appealCRL.A.No.728/2018

Name & description of N.Ramchandraiah Goud, s/o. Late Dakshina appellant/accusedMurthy, aged about 77 years, occ:Business, r/o.Flat No.202, 3rd floor, Tirumala Towers, Medipally, Ranga Reddy District. Name and description of 1)Jagannath, s/o.Badrappa, aged about 55 years, respondent/complainantocc:Pvt.employee,r/o.H.No.1-6-287/A/23, Kalandar Nagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2)The State of Telangana represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor The Sentence and law Accused was found guilty and was convicted under which it was under Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence imposed in lower court.punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only), with default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and also compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant under Sec.357 Cr.P.C.

CA.171/2017 2

Whether, Allowed/ dismissed, confirmed, CONFIRMED AND MODIFIED modified or reversed and if modified the modification.

Date of on or which:

Presentation:31.7.2018

Filing:31.7.2018

Notice issued by the 1.8.2018 court to appear:

Bail bonds, if appellant --- let out on bail.

Appellant ordered to 7.8.2018 appear

Hearing25.6.2019

Judgment:1.7.2019

This Criminal Appeal is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Ramanjaneyulu, counsel for the appellant and Sri G.Ashok Reddy, counsel for respondent No.1 and Addl.Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, record of evidence and upon duly considering the same, till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal was preferred aggrieved by the judgment in CC.No.736/2015 dt.30.1.2017 passed by the learned

XIV Addl. Judge-cum-XVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad convicting the appellant herein under Sec.255(2)

Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the

CA.171/2017 3

Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the Act) and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and also awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant under Sec.357(3) Cr.P.C. within two months, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2.In the complaint, it is, inter-alia, submitted that the appellant approached the complainant in the month of October 2012 and obtained hand-loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant to perform the marriage of his daughter. The appellant promised to repay the same within (6) months with interest @ 18% per annum. But thereafter, the appellant did not repay the due amount to the complainant. After much persuasion, the appellant issued Ex.P1 cheque bearing

No.993102 dt.25.5.2015 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of

Hyderabad, Lalaguda Tarnaka Branch, Secunderabad. Ex.P1 was presented with the banker of the complainant i.e. ICICI Bank Ltd.

on 25.5.2015 but it was dishonoured under Ex.P2 cheque return memo on 26.5.2015. Thereafter the complainant got issued

Ex.P3 legal notice on 15.6.2015 by registered post calling upon the appellant to pay the due amount within (15) days. The

CA.171/2017 4 appellant received the said notice on 18.6.2015 under Ex.P5 but he did not pay the due amount.

3.On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, the learned X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and after considering the material on record took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Act against the appellant.

4.On appearance of accused before the trial court, copies of the documents were furnished to him as required under Sec.207

Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Act, who pleaded not guilty.

Evidence on record

5.To prove the case of the complainant, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P6 documents were marked. P.W.1

Jagannath is the complainant himself. Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.993102 dt.25.5.2015 for Rs.3,00,000/-, Ex.P2 is the cheque return memo dt.26.5.2015, Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice dt.15.6.2015, Ex.P4 is the postal receipt dt.17.6.2015, Ex.P5 is the postal acknowledgement card dt.18.5.2015 and Ex.P6 is the undertaking on Non-Judicial Stamp paper dt.19.3.2016.

6.After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the

CA.171/2017 5 accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C who has denied the incriminating evidence put to him and no defence evidence was let in.

7.After considering the material on record and after hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge has found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Act, convicted him under Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present criminal appeal was preferred by the appellant, contending among other things, that the trial court has not considered the material on record properly.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the complainant has failed to prove his capacity to lend money; that

Ex.P6 was obtained by force with the help of police when warrant was pending and that in the legal notice the complainant has not mentioned the receipt of payment of Rs.30,000/- by the appellant, and that amount was also not shown either in the complaint or in the examination in chief of P.W.1. Hence he prayed to allow the appeal by setting the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

9.Heard both sides.

Points:-

10.The points that arise for determination are:-

CA.171/2017 6 1)Whether the complainant has established the ingredients of Sec.138(a), (b) and (c) and Sec.142(b) of the Act?

2)Whether Ex.P1 was issued by the accused to the complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or other liability?

3)Whether the complainant has established his case against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Act beyond all reasonable doubt? and 4)Whether the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with either on facts or of law?

Analysis of the evidence

POINT No.1:-

11.The sum and substance of the evidence of P.W.1 Jagannath is to the effect that on the request of the appellant in October 2012, he advanced hand-loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to him and the appellant promised to repay the same with interest within (6) months @ 18% per annum, but thereafter he did not pay the same. But on repeated demands, the appellant issued Ex.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant. According to this witness , he presented Ex.P1 with his banker ICICI Bank on 25.5.2015 and it was dishonoured under Ex.P2 for insufficient funds on 26.5.2015. Thereafter the complainant got issued Ex.P3 on 15.6.2015 within one month from the date of Ex.P2 sent under

Ex.P4 and it was received by the appellant under Ex.P5 on 18.6.2015. The evidence of P.W.1 makes it clear that he gave

CA.171/2017 7 clear (15) days time to pay the due amount, but the appellant did not pay the due amount. Therefore, the present complaint was filed within one month of the cause of action. Nothing was elicited as regards these aspects. Therefore, I hold that the complainant has established all the ingredients of Sec.138 (a),

(b), (c) and Sec.142(b) of the Act.

POINT No.2 & 3:-

12.The cross-examination of P.W.1 makes it quite clear that the appellant is admitting his signature on Ex.P1 and also issuing

Ex.P1 in favour of P.W.1. But he claims that Ex.P1 was issued towards security purpose. According to the appellant, he borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant and he repaid it and when he borrowed the amount, he handedover

Ex.P1 as security. When once the appellant claims that Ex.P1 issued towards security, a legal presumption would arise under

Sec.139 of the Act that Ex.P1 was issued towards legally enforceable debt. This presumption is rebuttable one.

13. No doubt the appellant can rebut the presumption either by adducing evidence or by depending upon the material available on record including cross-examination of P.W.1. But nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the appellant to rebut the presumption arose under Sec.139 of the

Act. More-over, Ex.P6 also is an important document. In Ex.P6,

CA.171/2017 8 the appellant has clearly mentioned that, in fact, he borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant in 2013 and since he did not repay the same, he issued Ex.P1 in favour of the complainant and it was bounced. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that Ex.P6 was obtained by force before the police when warrant was issued against the appellant. There is no such proof before this Court to that effect.

Thus Ex.P1 makes it clear that the appellant promised in the presence of elders that he will repay the due amount to the complainant. More-over the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P1 to P6 clearly establishes that he advanced a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the appellant and to discharge the said debt, the appellant issued Ex.P1 in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with these documents the complainant has established that Ex.P1 was issued in favour of the complainant towards legally enforceable debt.

14.The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BASALINGAPPA v.

MUDIBASAPPA in Criminal Appeal No.636 of 2019 dt.9.4.2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8645/2018 wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that when the appellant questions the capacity of the complainant to lend money, the complainant has to prove that he had capacity to lend money. The cross-

CA.171/2017 9 examination of P.W.1 goes to show that he was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month. This witness clarified that out of earnings he lent money. This evidence is sufficient to prove that P.W.1 has capacity to lend money.

15.As already stated, the appellant has failed to rebut the same under Sec.139 of the Act. In view of the above circumstances, I hold that the complainant has established its case against the accused for the offence punishable under

Sec.138 of the Act.

POINT No.4

16.The learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant under

Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default clause and also awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

When once the substantive sentence is awarded and fine was imposed, the trial Court cannot award compensation again. That apart, when the appellant was questioned by the trial Court as regards the quantum of sentence, he submitted that he is aged about 75 years and pleaded mercy. Further the appellant paid

Rs.30,000/- after issuing legal notice. However since P.W.1 admitted receipt of Rs.30,000/- after issuance of legal notice and since appellant is aged about 70 years, a lenient view can be

CA.171/2017 10 taken while imposing punishment. In view of these factors, the sentence is to be modified to the extent of fine only.

RESULT

17.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.

However while confirming the conviction of the appellant under

Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the substantive sentence simple imprisonment of six (6) months is modified to that of fine of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The entire fine amount shall be paid to the complainant under Sec.357 Cr.P.C. One-fourth (1/4th) of the compensation amount paid as per the orders of this Court passed in

Crl.M.P.No.965/2017 dt.24.3.2017 and fine of Rs.3,000/- paid on

the date of judgment before the trial Court shall be deducted from the above said fine amount.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I partly, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of July 2019.

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

SECUNDERABAD

CA.171/2017 11

1 CRLA. No.1230 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS

JUDGE: SECUNDERABAD

Present: Mohammed Nizamuddin, Spl. Judge for Trial of Offences Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cum- VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge Secunderabad

THURSDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1230 OF 2018

From which court this IV Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile appeal is preferredCourt), Nampally Hyderabad.

No. of the case in that courtS.T.C.No. 12660 of 2018

Number of appealCRL.A.No. 1230 of 2018

Name & description of A. Surendra Reddy, s/o. A. Sambi Reddy, age appellant/accused 37 years, occ: Self employee, r/o. Amberpet, Hyderabad. Name and description of The State of Telangana through the respondent/complainantInspector of Police, Traffic Police Station, Marredpally.

The Sentence and law underThe accused was found guilty and was convicted under Sec.252 Cr.P.C and which it was imposed in sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (3) days and to pay a fine of lower court.Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Sec.185(a) of Motor Vehicles Act (in short 'the Act') and Rs.100/- for the offence punishable under Sec.130 r/w.177 of the Act, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (2) days for each offence.

Whether, Allowed/ dismissed, confirmed, modified or reversed and if MODIFIED modified the modification.

Date of on or which:

2 CRLA. No.1230 of 2018

Presentation:13.12.2018

Filing:13.12.2018

Notice issued by the court 14.12.2018 to appear:

Bail bonds, if appellants let ----- out on bail.

Appellants ordered to 18.12.2018 appear

Hearing04.07.2019

Judgment:04.07.2019

This Criminal appeal is coming on before me on on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri J. Susheel Kumar, counsel for the appellant/accused and of Dr.K.Ajay, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, record of evidence and upon duly considering the same, till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in

S.T.C.No.12660 of 2018 dated 15.11.2018 convicting him under

Sec.252 Cr.P.C and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (3) days and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Sec.185(a) of Motor Vehicles Act (in short 'the Act') and Rs.100/- for the offence punishable under Sec.130 r/w.177 of the

Act, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (2) days for each offence.

3 CRLA. No.1230 of 2018

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 10.11.2018 at 00.28 hours D. Dasru, Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station Marredpally was conducting vehicle checking near Jubilee Hills Check Post,

Hyderabad along with his team. He stopped the four wheeler bearing

No.AP28BP2680 driven by the accused and he was subjected to alcohol test with breath analyzer and the print result of the test had shown the BAC level of 236 mg/100 ml exceeding the permissible BAC level of 30 mg/100 ml as mentioned in Sec.185(a) of the Act. He had obtained signatures of the accused on the reading slip as well as on the challan slip.

3.The Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station Marredpally filed the petty case charge sheet against the accused before the learned IV

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned IV Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance of the offences punishable

under Sec.185(a) and 130/177 of the Act against the accused. After appearance of the accused before the learned IV Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad, copies of documents were furnished to the

accused under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sec.185(a) and 130/177 of the Act and he pleaded guilty of the offences. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Sec.252 Cr.P.C. and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant.

5.Heard both sides.

4 CRLA. No.1230 of 2018

6.The point for determination is, whether there are sufficient grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sec.185(a) and 130/177 of the Act as prayed for?

POINT:

7.As seen from the records, the appellant/accused herein was driving the four wheeler bearing No. No.AP28BP2680 and it was stopped by the Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station Begumpet at the relevant time and he was subjected to alcohol test with breath analyzer and the print result of the test had shown the BAC level of 236 mg/100 ml exceeding the permissible BAC level of 30 mg /100 ml.

The punishment prescribed for the offence under Sec.185(a) of the

Act is imprisonment for a period of six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.2,000/-, or with both and the punishment prescribed for the offence under Sec.133/177 of the Act is Rs.100/-. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is the first offender and sole bread winner of his family, hence he prayed to take a lenient view. In view of the above factors, I hold that it is a fit case to take a lenient view while imposing punishment by modifying the sentence imposed by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad to that of the fine paid by the accused and by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment.

8.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part while maintaining the conviction, the sentence imposed by the learned IV Metropolitan 5 CRLA. No.1230 of 2018

Magistrate, Hyderabad in STC.No.12660 of 2018 on 15.11.2018 is

modified to that of only fine imposed which was already paid by the appellant, for the respective offences punishable under Secs.185(a) of the Act and Sec.130/177 of the Act, by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of July 2019.

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

SECUNDERABAD

6 CRLA. No.1230 of 2018

1 CRLA.No.1015 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER S.Cs &

S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: SECUNDERABAD

Present: Mohammed Nizamuddin, Spl. Judge for Trial of Offences Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cum- VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge; Secunderabad

FRIDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1015 of 2016

From which court this appeal is XI Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. preferred

No. of the case in that courtC.C.No.33 of 2014 (Old C.C.1135 of 2013)

Number of appealCRL.A.No.1015 of 2016

Name & description of E. Erusha, w/o. Vijay Kumar, d/o. appellant/accusedAugustine, age about 40 years, occ: Private Employee, r/o. Plot No.12, 1st floor, Mahesh Nilayam, Sree Nagar Colony, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad-015.

Name and description of 1.K. Ramesh Kumar, s/o. K. Vijay respondents/complainantKumar, age 37 years, occ: Business, r/o. Plot No.13, Surya Colony, Kalasiguda, Bolaram, Secunderabad.

2.The State of Telangana represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor

The Sentence and law under The accused was convicted under which it was imposed in lower Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence court.punishableunderSec.138of Negotiable Insutruments Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eleven months and also to pay a fine of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only). in default simple imprisonment for two and half months. Out of fine amount Rs.10,90,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs, ninty thousand only) was 2 CRLA.No.1015 of 2016 ordered as compensation under Sec.357(1) (b) Cr.P.C. to the complainant.

Whether, Allowed/ dismissed, Case is settled before the Lok Adalat. confirmed, modified or reversed and if modified the modification.

Date of on or which:

Presentation:21.11.2016

Filing:21.11.2016

Notice issued by the court to 22.11.2016 appear:

Bail bonds, if appellant let out --- on bail.

Appellant order to appear27.12.2016

Hearing05-07-2019

Judgment:05-07-2019

This Criminal appeal is coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri B. Anil Kumar, counsel for the appellant, Sri S. Koteshwara Rao, counsel for the respondent No.1, not present and of Dr.K.Ajay Babu, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, record of evidence and upon duly considering the same, till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Both parties are present along with alongwith their counsel.

2.Case is referred to Lok Adalat. Case is settled in Lok Adalat.

3.In the result, the appellant/accused is acquitted under Sec.147 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act.

3 CRLA.No.1015 of 2016

4.Her bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court

on this the 5th day of July 2019.

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

SECUNDERABAD

1 CRLA.No.370 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER S.Cs &

S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: SECUNDERABAD

Present: Mohammed Nizamuddin, Spl. Judge for Trial of Offences Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cum- VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge; Secunderabad

TUESDAY THE SECOND DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.370 of 2016

From which court this appeal is X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. preferred

No. of the case in that courtC.C.No.247 of 2014 (Old C.C. No.857 of 2014)

Number of appealCRL.A.No.370 of 2016

Name & description of T. Narsimlu, aged about 38 years, appellant/accusedproprietor of Siddu Collections, shop at Door No.7-1-600, Station Road, Secunderabad.

Name and description of 1.Swastik Sarees, represented by respondents/complainantits proprietor Sandeep Kumar, s/o. Laxmi Narayana Ozha, aged 41 years, r/o. 4-6-253/5, Sri Rama Market, Subhash Road, Secunderabad.

2.The State of Telangana represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor

The Sentence and law under The accused was convicted under which it was imposed in lower Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence court.punishableunderSec.138of Negotiable Insutruments Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1, 50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in default simple imprisonment for two months. Out of fine amount Rs.1,40,000/- was ordered as compensation under Sec.357(a) (b) 2 CRLA.No.370 of 2016

Cr.P.C. to the complainant.

Whether, Allowed/ dismissed, Case is settled before the Lok Adalat. confirmed, modified or reversed and if modified the modification.

Date of on or which:

Presentation:30.04.2016

Filing:30.04.2016

Notice issued by the court to 04.05.2016 appear:

Bail bonds, if appellant let out --- on bail.

Appellant order to appear15.06.2016

Hearing02-07-2019

Judgment:02-07-2019

This Criminal appeal is coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri L. Prasad Rao, counsel for the appellant, Sri C.V. Chandramouli, counsel for the respondent No.1 and of Dr.K.Ajay Babu, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, record of evidence and upon duly considering the same, till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Both parties are present along with alongwith their counsel.

2.Case is referred to Lok Adalat. Case is settled in Lok Adalat.

3.In the result, the appellant/accused is acquitted under Sec.147 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act.

3 CRLA.No.370 of 2016

4.His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court

on this the 2nd day of July 2019.

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

SECUNDERABAD

1 CRLA.No.306 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER S.Cs &

S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: SECUNDERABAD

Present: Mohammed Nizamuddin, Spl. Judge for Trial of Offences Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cum- VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge; Secunderabad

THURSDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.306 of 2016

From which court this appeal is XIV Additional Judge-cum-XXVIII preferredAdditional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Secunderabad.

No. of the case in that courtC.C.No.18 of 2015

Number of appealCRL.A.No.306 of 2016

Name & description of M. Shanker Reddy, s/o. M. Bucchi Reddy, appellant/accusedr/o. Plot Nos.37 & 38, New Reddy Enclave, Old Alwal, Ranga Reddy district, Hyderabad.

Name and description of L. Prasad, s/o. late Ramakrishna Rao, aged respondents/complainantabout 60 years, occ: Business, r/o.28, Santhoshima Colony, West Marredpally, Secunderabad.

The Sentence and law under The accused was convicted under which it was imposed in lower Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence court.punishableunderSec.138of Negotiable Insutruments Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) in default simple imprisonment for one month. and also Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) was ordered as compensation under Sec.357(3) Cr.P.C. to the complainant.

Whether, Allowed/ dismissed, Case is settled before the Lok Adalat. confirmed, modified or reversed and if modified the modification.

2 CRLA.No.306 of 2016

Date of on or which:

Presentation:11.04.2016

Filing:11.04.2016

Notice issued by the court to 12.04.2016 appear:

Bail bonds, if appellant let out --- on bail.

Appellant order to appear31.05.2016

Hearing04-07-2019

Judgment:04-07-2019

This Criminal appeal is coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri R. Sudhakar, counsel for the appellant, Sri B.R.K. Rao, counsel for the respondent and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, record of evidence and upon duly considering the same, till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Both parties are present along with alongwith their counsel. Rs.4,00,000/- is paid today.

2.Case is referred to Lok Adalat. Case is settled in Lok Adalat.

3.In the result, the appellant/accused is acquitted under Sec.147 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act.

4.His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court

on this the 4th day of July 2019.

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

SECUNDERABAD

3 CRLA.No.306 of 2016