1
FORM No.72
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
District of Guntur
Calendar of case tried by the Additional Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division) :: Macherla.
Judgment in Calendar Case No.190/2017.
Date of Judgment :: 08-04-2024.
Commence Report ofApprehensionDate ofReleaseClosure ofSentence or Offence-ment of complainantof accusedremandon bailtrialorder trial 17-02-1718-04-201711-09-2017--27-07-2206-03-2408-04-2024
Between : Tangirala Nagi Reddy, S/o.Narsi Reddy, Hindu by Caste, Aged 38 Years, Business, R/o.Kandlakunta Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Guntur District. … Complainant
And
Yatham Govinda Reddy, C/o.Kanaka Maha Lakshmi Granites @ Marbles, Hindu by Caste, Aged about 45 Years, Business, R/o.Opposite to Andhra Bank, Hujur Nagar, Miryalaguda Road, Nalgonda District.
...Accused
OffenceSec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Plea of AccusedNot guilty.
Finding of the CourtFound guilty.
Judgment :- In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and he is convicted under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence.
Sentence :- The accused is suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR and he shall also pay the cheque amount i.e., Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Installments Act, 1881 and in default of payment of compensation, he shall suffer simple Imprisonment for THREE MONTHS under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. will meet the ends of Justice.
Explanation of delay and remarks :- On 11-09-2017, appearance of accused and copies of documents were furnished; on 10-03-2022, the accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C and posted for trail. The trial was commenced from 27-07-2022 and P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked and the complainant’s was evidence closed on 15-03-2023. On 23-03-2023, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, for which, he denied the Complainant’s evidence and reported defence evidence and on 05-05-2023, Chief-affidavit of D.W.1 was filed; Chief-affidavit of D.W.2 was filed on 28-07-2023 and Ex.D1 was marked; C.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on 15-12-2023 and defence evidence was closed on 06-03-2024.
2
Heard on both sides and on 08-04-2024, Judgment was pronounced. Hence the delay.
Sd/- N.Sarada.
Additional Civil Judge,
(Junior Division) Macherla.
Copy submitted to :-
1. The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate – cum – Principal Assistant Sessions
Judge, Guntur.
2. The District Legal Services Authority, Guntur.
3. Copy to the individual.
NOTE :- As per the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.580/2024 in C.C.No.190/2017, dated 08-04-2024 filed under section 389 (3) Cr.P.C., the sentence of accused is suspended temporarily till 26-04-2024.
3
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::
MACHERLA
Present ::Smt. N.Sarada.
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) :: Macherla.
Monday, this the 8th day of April, 2024.
CALENDAR CASE No. 190 /2017
Between : Tangirala Nagi Reddy, S/o.Narsi Reddy, Hindu by Caste, Aged 38 Years, Business, R/o.Kandlakunta Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Guntur District. … Complainant
And
Yatham Govinda Reddy, C/o.Kanaka Maha Lakshmi Granites @ Marbles, Hindu by Caste, Aged about 45 Years, Business, R/o.Opposite to Andhra Bank, Hujur Nagar, Miryalaguda Road, Nalgonda District.
...Accused
This case is coming up before me today for disposal in the presence of Sri Ch.Nagi Reddy, Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri Shaik Gouse Pasha, Advocate for the Accused and the matter having heard on 22-03-2024 and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :-
J U D G M E N T
01.The present complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
02.The brief facts of the Complainant’s case are as follows :- The complainant has contended that he is resident of Kandlakunta Village of Veldurthy Mandal and he is living, by doing business and the accused is resident of Hujur Nagar. The complainant and accused are friends. Previously, the complainant had maintained a hostel by name Padmavathi Boys Hostel situated near Aravinda College at Kothapet of Hyderabad for a period of 05 months and due to lack of knowledge to maintain the hostel, he sustained losses. At that time, the accused had approached the complainant and advised him to sell away the said hostel to the accused along with furniture & kitchen articles etc., including goodwill for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- and on that, the complainant had executed an agreement in favour of the accused and handed over the hostile along with entire full equipment to the accused. In this regard, the accused had paid cash of Rs.20,000/- and one cheque for Rs.30,000/- of Kamalakar was given to the complainant and the said cheque was encashed on 20-12-2016. Later, the accused had transferred an amount of Rs.60,000/- on 29-12-2016; Rs.90,000/- on 30-12-2016 to the account of the complainant and requested time for a period of one month to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. Subsequently, on repeated demands made by the complainant to pay the balance amount, the accused had issued a Cheque vide bearing No.000020, dated 09-02-2017 for Rs.3,50,000/-, drawn on HDFC Bank, Hujur Nagar Branch of Nalgonda District in favour of the complainant in the presence of (1) Gogireddy Siva 4
Reddy, (2) Pinneboina Rama Krishna, towards aforesaid balance amount, by stating that his account is having sufficient funds to honour the said cheque and also stated that the cheque may be presented at an earliest date. On 16-02-2017, the complainant had presented the above said cheque in his bank account i.e., State Bank of Hyderabad, Macherla Branch for collection and the same was returned to him as unpaid due to “funds insufficient” with a cheque return memo, dated 17-02-2017. Subsequently, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 11-03-2017, calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount and the same was received by the accused on 13-03-2017; but he did not issue any reply notice and he did not pay the due amount of dishnoured cheque so for to the complainant. In the aforesaid circumstances, after following the due technicalities laid down under the Act, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint. Therefore, it is prayed by the complainant to punish the accused according to law.
03.Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Based on it, the case was taken on file for the offence under section 138 r/w.142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the accused.
04.On service of summons, the accused has appeared before this Court and after his appearance, copies were supplied to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., and thereafter, the accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. Substance of accusation leveled against the accused under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused was further examined regarding the means of engagement of counsel to defend the case on his behalf, for which, he reported that he has sufficient means to engage counsel.
05.During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 on his behalf. Ex.P1 is Original Cheque vide bearing No.000020, dated 09-02-2017, drawn on H.D.F.C. Bank, Hujur Nagar Branch of Nalgonda District for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-; Ex.P2 is Cheque Return Memo, dated 17-02-2017 issued by the State India of Hyderabad, Macherla Branch; Ex.P3 is Office Copy of Legal Notice, dated 11-03-2017; Ex.P4 is Postal Receipt, dated 11-03-2017; Ex.P5 is Service Postal Acknowledgment, dated 24-03-2017 and Ex.P6 is Statement of account of the complainant. On behalf of the complainant, P.Ws.2 and 3.
06.After closure of the entire complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and explained the substance of incriminating evidence appearing against him in Telugu, for which, the accused denied the evidence of complainant and reported that he has defence evidence on his behalf. On behalf of the accused, he himself was examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 was also examined and got marked Ex.D1 on his behalf. Ex.D1 is Agreement of Sale (Receipt), dated 16-12-2016 (subject to objection). During further course of trial, C.Ws.1 and 2 were examined.
07.Heard arguments on both the sides.
5
08.The learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the decision of Rahiyha Vs. Jasna and another reported in Crl.A.No.532 of 2022,
dated 13-03-2024.
09.Now, the following point arise for determination in this case is :- “Whether Ex.P1 – Original Cheque, dated 09-02-2017 is
issued towards discharge of legal enforceable liability or not?”
10.P O I N T :- The complainant’s counsel vehemently argued and it is the case of the complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, that P.W.1 and the accused, who was examined as D.W.1, are friends. Previously, P.W.1 had maintained a hostel by name Padmavathi Boys Hostel situated near Aravinda College at Kothapet of Hyderabad for a period of 05 months and due to lack of knowledge to maintain the hostel, he sustained losses. At that time, D.W.1 had approached P.W.1 and advised him to sell away the said hostel to him along with furniture & kitchen articles etc., including goodwill for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- and on that, P.W.1 had executed an agreement in favour of the accused vide Ex.D1 and handed over the hostile along with entire full equipment to the accused. In this regard, D.W.1 had paid cash of Rs.20,000/- and one cheque for Rs.30,000/- of Kamalakar was given to P.W.1 and the said cheque was encashed on 20-12-2016. Later, D.W.1 had transferred an amount of Rs.60,000/- on 29-12-2016; Rs.90,000/- on 30-12-2016 to the account of P.W.1 and requested time for a period of one month to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. Subsequently, on repeated demands made by P.W.1 to pay the balance amount, D.W.1 had issued Ex.P1 - Cheque vide bearing No.000020, dated 09-02-2017 for Rs.3,50,000/-, drawn on HDFC Bank, Hujur Nagar Branch of Nalgonda District in favour of P.W.1 in the presence of (1) Gogireddy Siva Reddy, who was examined as P.W.3, (2) Pinneboina Rama Krishna, who was examined as P.W.2, towards aforesaid balance amount, by stating that his account is having sufficient funds to honour the said cheque and also stated that the cheque may be presented at an earliest date. On 16-02-2017, P.W.1 had presented the above said cheque in his bank account i.e., State Bank of Hyderabad, Macherla Branch for collection and the same was returned to him as unpaid due to “funds insufficient” with a cheque return memo, dated 17-02-2017 vide Ex.P2. Subsequently, P.W.1 got issued a legal notice on 11-03-2017 vide Ex.P3, calling upon D.W.1 to pay the cheque amount and the same was received by him on 13-03-2017; but he did not issue any reply notice and he did not pay the due amount of dishnoured cheque so for to P.W.1. Therefore, P.W.1 has filed the present complaint to punish the accused according to law.
11.The above said contentions of the complainant have been categorically deposed by him as P.W.1 and he was cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused. It is clear that there are formal suggestions given to P.W.1 and no favourable points have been elicited in favour of the accused during course of cross-examination of P.W.1. During the cross- examination of P.W.1, dated 16-12-2022, he further testified that he was running only one hostel at Hyderabad. They executed an agreement about the purchase of hostel; but he did not mention the same in his complaint and chief-affidavit. He run the hostel for four months at Hyderabad. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, dated 04-01-2023, he further deposed that 6 according to Ex.P6, he has received an amount of Rs.30,000/- from one Kamalakar. He orally requested the accused about due payment over phone. He further deposed in his cross-examination on 20-09-2023 that he did not mention in his complaint that from whom and date, he has purchased the hostel. He does not know the names of Real – Estate Brokers, who offered the hostel to him. He does not know D.W.2. He knows one P.Kamalakar. One Kamalakar signed on Ex.D1. He has no objection to send Ex.D1 for an Expert Opinion. All the suggestions put- forward by the learned counsel for the accused are of total denial.
12.To support the version of P.W.1, P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined and they have corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in all extents and further deposed that the entire transaction was took place in their presence. During the cross-examination of P.W.2, he has testified that he cannot say Ex.P1 number. He has acquaintance with P.W.1 since 20 to 25 years. All the suggestions put-forward by the learned counsel for the accused are of total denial. During the cross-examination of P.W.3, he has deposed that he has acquaintance with P.W.1 since 10 years. He has seen the accused in his Shop in February – 2017. All the suggestions put-forward by the learned counsel for the accused are of total denial.
13.The complainant has placed before this court all the necessary documents and the technicalities, which are laid down under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is also followed by him and the accused has contested this complaint only to gain time and there is no force in his contentions.
14.On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused has argued that P.W.1 has filed this false case against the accused. Further argued that the accused is the stranger to P.W.1. D.W.1 never purchased Padmavathi Boys Hostel near Aravinda College at Kothapet of Hyderabad. He did not execute any agreement in favour of P.W.1. In fact, P.W.1 had sold his hostel to one Davanam Saidamma on 16-12-2016. In the above transaction, the said Davanam Saidamma has requested him to give his signed two blank cheques to her as she is not having bank account and she is an illiterate person. Thereafter, P.W.1 induced the said Saidamma and obtained the said cheque from her and filled the blanks with wrong dates with his henchmen and presented the same for wrongful gain. Therefore, there is no legal enforceable debt between P.W.1 and D.W.1. The accused never issued any cheque to P.W.1. Further argued that P.W.1 failed to prove the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act against the accused and the accused has not committed any offence. Hence, prayed the
Hon’ble Court to acquit the accused according to law.
15.Added to the above, the accused himself was examined as D.W.1 and he was cross-examined by the learned counsel for P.W.1. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has transferred an
amount of Rs.60,000/- on 29-12-2016 and Rs.90,000/- on
30-12-2016 from his account to the complainant’s account. The credited amounts of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.90,000/- were mentioned in Ex.P6. He did not file any complaint against P.W.1 before the Police. He received Ex.P3; but he did not issue any reply notice to Ex.P3. All the suggestions put-forward by the learned counsel for the complainant are of total denial.
7
16.In order to support the version of D.W.1, D.W.2 was examined and she has corroborated the evidence of D.W.1 in all extents. During the cross-examination of D.W.2, she has sated that she did hostel business for a period of six years from 2016. She started hostile business on 16-12-2016 and prior to hostel business, she did cultivation. She has no acquaintance with the accused. She got acquaintance with the accused as he used to come to her Village on business work. There is no money transaction in between herself and accused. The accused sent Rs.1,50,000/- to her towards her necessities. She is not having the possession of cheque book of the accused. Prior to 15 days of 16-12-2016, there were terms going on between herself and accused with regard to hostel sale transaction. She does not remember the date of execution of Ex.D1. Ex.D1 was drafted by one Kamalakar at Kothapet, Dilshuk Nagar of Hyderabad. Ex.D1 does not contain the scribe and there is correction on Ex.D1. At the time of drafting of Ex.D1, P.W.1, herself, P.Kamalakara Rao and Kunduri Lakshma Reddy were present. She put her thumb impression on Ex.D1. She did not issue any legal notice to P.W.1. She did not file any complaint against P.W.1
before Dilshuk Nagar Police Station and Huzood Nagar Police Station.
She did not make any representations before this court that the
complainant already sold the hostel to her. All the suggestions put- forward by the learned counsel for the complainant are of total denial.
17.During the cross-examination of C.W.1 by the learned counsel
for accused, C.W.1 deposed that he got acquittance with the complainant
since 2016. He does not know one Davanam Saidamma. He has presented a cheque of Rs.30,000/- to complainant, but he cannot say the date of presentation. In general during the hostel sale transactions one agreement would executed between the vendor and buyer. All the suggestions put- forward by the learned counsel for the accused are of total denial.
18. During the cross-examination of C.W.1 by the learned counsel
for complainant, C.W.1 testified that he knows the accused and
complainant. He admitted that previously, the complainant had done hostel business in Dhilshuk Nagar of Kothapet. He admitted that he acted as
mediator in hostel sale transaction between the complainant and
accused. The complainant executed an agreement in favour of accused with regard to hostel sale transaction. On the same day, he has presented a cheque of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant on behalf of accused as he has due amount of Rs.30,000/- to the accused. On the same day, the accused presented of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant informed him that the accused transferred the part amount to complainant by way of bank transaction. Complainant handed over the hostel to the accused even though he did not receive the full amount. He doe not know DW2. There is no agreement transaction between DW2 and complainant in his presence. Complainant informed him that inspite of several requests, the accused did not pay the balance amount to him. He also requested the accused to pay the balance amount to PW1, for which, he replied that he would pay. Complainant informed him that the
accused came to Macherla and presented a Ex.P1 to P.W.1 for
Rs.3,50,000/-. Inspite of cross-examination of C.W.2, nothing was elicited from him in favour of the accused.
8
19.Further, the learned counsel for accused argued that there is no business transaction between the complainant and accused. Further argued that in the chief-affidavit of P.W.1, he has mentioned that he is a businessman; but he has not produced any valid documents to prove the same. Hence, he prayed the Hon’ble Court that the accused never issued Ex.P1 to the complainant and for the purpose of this case, Exs.P1 to P5 are fabricated and filed before this court. Hence, he sought for dismissal of complaint and prayed to acquit the accused.
20.In other side, the counsel for complainant further argued that the complainant had discharged initial burden of proving legal enforceable liability by examining himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 itself is showing that the accused has to pay balance amount and in this regard, Ex.P1 was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. On perusal of evidence of D.W.1, he admitted that he has transferred an amount of Rs.60,000/- on 29-12-2016 and Rs.90,000/- on 30-12-2016 from his account to the complainant’s account. If really there was no transaction took place between P.W.1 and D.W.1, why did D.W.1 send the above amounts to the account of P.W.1 from his account. Further more, Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of the accused and on careful perusal of Ex.D1, it was not executed according to law and it cannot be looked into. There is no necessity to compare the signatures of P.W.1, D.W.2, C.Ws.1 & 2 on Ex.D1 as it was not executed according to law and it cannot be looked into. D.W.1 admitted that due to illiteracy of D.W.2, D.W.1 has issued the disputed cheque in favour of P.W.1 and the same was dishonoured due to funds insufficient. Therefore, the signature on Ex.P1 is belongs to the accused and the cheque was issued towards discharge of legal enforceable liability.
21.At this juncture, this court intended to take reliance of Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment in the case of Prem Chand Vijay Kumar Vs. Yashpal Singh and another reported in (2005) 4 SCC 417; wherein observed the following facts required to be proved to successfully to prosecute the drawer for an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
a) The Complainant has to prove that there was a legally enforceable debt.
b) The cheque issued by the accused towards discharge of the said legally enforceable debt.
c) The said cheque presented for collection within the period of its validity and the same was dishonoured by the Bank Authorities for one of the reasons which attract the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
d) The complainant shall issued a legal notice as contemplated under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 within the statutory period and the accused received the said notice, but failed to make any payment covered by the dishonoured cheque within the stipulated time as mentioned in section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
e) The complaint has to file within the period of limitation in the court having jurisdiction.
9
22.As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court (Supra), once the initial burden was proved by the complainant running of presumptions would start. In the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan reported in 2010 (11) SCC 411, a three – Judge Bench Judgment depicts :- “….the accused had admitted that the signature on the impugned cheque (No. 886322, dated 8-2-2001) was indeed his own. Once this fact has been acknowledged, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque pertained to a legally enforceable debt or liability. This presumption is of a rebuttal nature and the onus is then on the accused to raise a probable defence….”
23.The said point was enlighten by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Hiten P.Dalal Vs. Brajendranath Benerjee reported in 2001 (6) SCC
16 and in K.N.Veena Vs. Muniyappan and another reported in AIR 2001 SC 2895. “….The burden was on the appellant to disapprove the presumptions under Secs.138 and 139 a burden which he failed to discharge at all. The averment in the written statement of the appellant was not enough. Incidentally, the defence in the written statement that the four cheques were given for intended transactions was not the answer given by the Appellant to the notice under Section 138 . Then he had said that the cheques were given to assist the Bank for restructuring (Ex.H). It was necessary for the appellant at least to show on the basis of acceptable evidence either that his explanation in the written statement was so probable that a prudent man ought to accept it or to establish that the effect of the material brought on the record, in its totality, rendered the existence of the fact presumed, improbable. (Vide Trilok Chand Jain Vs. State of Delhi 1975 (4) SCC 761 ). The appellant has done neither. In the absence of any such proof the presumptions under Sections 138 and 139 must prevail…”
24.The above observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically depicting ones the accused admitted his signature and issuance of blank cheque, the burden lies on him and the complainant has discharged from proving initial burden that the cheque is issuance towards discharge of legal enforceable liability.
25.In the present case on hand, D.W.1 admitted that he has transferred an amount of Rs.60,000/- on 29-12-2016 and Rs.90,000/- on 30-12-2016 from his account to the complainant’s account. In order to prove the case of P.W.1, C.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and they have corroborated the version of P.W.1 and C.W.1 admitted that he acted as an mediator between P.W.1 and D.W.1 regarding sale of hotel transaction. D.W.2 did not support the case of D.W.1 in all extents. D.W.1 further admitted that he has received Ex.P3; but he did not issue any reply notice to Ex.P3. Therefore, the defence evidence is a weak piece of evidence and taking importance of the defence evidence of the accused, unless and until there is concrete evidence is placed before this court. The defence of the accused coupled with the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 does not improve the contentions of the accused. To prove the version of D.W.1, D.W.2 was also examined; but as seen from the evidence of D.W.2, she admitted that she has no acquaintance with the accused and she does not remember the date of execution of Ex.D1. Ex.D1 was drafted by one Kamalakar at 10
Kothapet, Dilshuk Nagar of Hyderabad. If really there was any transaction took place between P.W.1 and D.W.2 with regard to sale of hotel, why she pleaded ignorance about the execution of Ex.D1. Hence, the evidence of D.W.2 is not helpful to the case of defence. The accused has alleged that P.W.1 has no capacity to lend such huge amount; but he did not produce any valid and concrete documentary evidence to prove the same. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he has filed this false case. Therefore, this court observed that the accused did not take any steps for proving his defence nor he did not file any complaint copy before this court to show the action taken against P.W.1. Having kept quiet till filing of this complaint and coming forward with false defence is unrealistic and unbelievable.
26.As seen the contents of Exs.P1 to P5, the complainant has proved his initial burden that the accused has to pay balance amount and issued Ex.P1 – Cheque towards legally enforceable debt and within time, P.W.1 has presented Ex.P1 in Bank and the same was dishonoured as unpaid due to funds insufficient. Once the complainant discharged his initial burden of legal enforceable liability, it is for the accused to rebut the presumptions envisaged under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, this Court feels that P.W.1 had proved his initial burden of legal enforceable liability.
27.Coming to the another aspect that the cheque must be presented within time in the bank. As seen from Ex.P1 - Original Cheque, it was issued on 09-02-2017. Ex.P2 – Cheque Return Memo, dated 17-02-2017 was received from the bank that the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement of “funds insufficient”. Therefore, Ex.P1 was presented in the bank of P.W.1 by him within time. On 11-03-2017, P.W.1 has issued statutory legal notice to the accused, calling upon him to pay the cheque amount and the said notice was exhibited as Ex.P3. Exs.P4 and P5 are depicts that the same was delivered to the accused, but he did not issue any reply notice nor he did not pay any due amount so far. Therefore, the said exhibit giving clear picture that the accused has issued Ex.P1 – Cheque towards discharge of legal enforceable liability. The said cheque had bounced in the reasons mentioned in section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and thereafter, P.W.1 has served notice and filed this complaint within time. During the evidence of D.W.1, the accused admitted that P.W.1 sent Ex.P3, but he did not issue any Reply Notice to Ex.P3. Though the accused has received notice, he did not pay the amount. D.W.1 in his entire evidence, he has not denied issuance of cheque towards legallaly enforceable debt. In this regard, D.W.1 has not taken any steps to send Ex.D1 or Ex.P1 to R.F.S.L. for opinion with regard to the signature. The learned counsel for accused has adduced Ex.D1, which shows the sale transaction. Therefore, the above said document is not helpful to the present case of D.W.1. In view of above foregoing reasons, the contention of the accused cannot be considered and however, the documents filed by P.W.1 and evidence produced before this Court reveals that P.W.1 has successfully proved the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this Court has come to the conclusion that the accused has issued Ex.P1 - Cheque in favour of P.W.1 towards legally enforceable debt. From the above foregoing reasons, this court has come to the conclusion that the complainant has successfully brought home the guilt of the accused 11 for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 beyond all reasonable doubt, as such, the accused is liable to be convicted for the said offence. Accordingly, this point is answered against the accused.
28.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and he is convicted under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence.
Dictated by me to the Grade-III Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of April, 2024.
Sd/- N.Sarada.
Additional Civil Judge,
(Junior Division) Macherla.
29.The accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed, for which, he has submitted that his wife is a Physically Handicapped person and he has old aged parents and he is suffering from ill-health and he has requested to take lenient view.
30.As the offence is under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused is not entitled to the benefits of either Probation of Offenders Act or under section 360 of Cr.P.C. The accused deserves punishment.
31.However, in view of the amount involved in this case, the mercy pleaded by the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel sentencing the accused to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR and he shall also pay the cheque amount i.e., Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Installments Act, 1881 and in default of payment of compensation, he shall suffer simple Imprisonment for THREE MONTHS under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. will meet the ends of Justice.
32.The period of remand, if any, shall be given set off to the accused as against the terms of imprisonment as per section 428 of Cr.P.C.
33.The accused is informed that he got right of appeal against the judgment passed by this court and the Calendar and Judgment is made ready in order to receive the same by the accused. The office is directed to supply copy of the Calendar and Judgment immediately to the accused at free of cost.
Dictated by me to the Grade-III Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of April, 2024.
Sd/- N.Sarada.
Additional Civil Judge,
(Junior Division) Macherla.
12
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the Complainant :-
P.W.1 :- Sri Tangirala Nagi Reddy. P.W.2 :- Sri Pinneboina Rama Krishna. P.W.3 :- Sri Gogireddy Siva Reddy.
For the Defence : - D.W.1 :- Sri Yatham Govinda Reddy. D.W.2 :- Smt. Davanam Saidamma.
C.W.1 :- Sri Kamalakara Rao. C.W.2 :- Sri K.Lakshma Reddy.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the Complainant :-
Ex.P-1 :- Original Cheque vide bearing No.000020, dated 09-02-2017, drawn on H.D.F.C. Bank, Hujur Nagar Branch of Nalgonda District for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-.
Ex.P-2 :- Cheque Return Memo, dated 17-02-2017 issued by the State India of Hyderabad, Macherla Branch.
Ex.P-3 :- Office Copy of Legal Notice, dated 11-03-2017.
Ex.P-4 :- Postal Receipt, dated 11-03-2017.
Ex.P-5 :- Service Postal Acknowledgment, dated 24-03-2017.
Ex.P-6 :- Statement of account of the complainant.
For the Defence :- Ex.D-1 :- Agreement of Sale (Receipt), dated 16-12-2016 (subject to objection).
Sd/- N.Sarada.
Additional Civil Judge,
(Junior Division) Macherla.