Smt.Namala Jyothi

1 CC 1231/2022 Dt: 17.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: Smt N.Jyothi III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

Friday, the 11th day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.1231/2022

Between: Chavatapalli Tirumala Rao, S/o.Nagabhushanam, aged about 60 years, R/o.D.No. 21- 9/3-14, Pasuputhota Colony, 2nd Line, Madhura Nagar, Vijayawada-520011, Krishna District.

...Complainant

And

Satti Nagababu, S/o.Dharma Rao, aged about 35 years, R/o.Aparna Heights, 3rd Floor, GSR Colony-2, Gandhi Nagar, Amalapuram, East Godavari District-533201. … Accused

This case is coming on 07.04.2025 before me for final hearing in the pres- ence of Sri J.V.S.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for Complainant and of Sri Dasari Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the material on record, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The complainant filed the complaint against the accused for the offence pun- ishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (herein after, called to, in short, as the N.I.Act).

2. The brief facts as alleged by complainant are set out below:

It is the case of the complainant, as was projected that, accused borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- on 10.11.2019 from the complainant for his family ex- penses, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. On repeated de- mands accused had issued a cheque bearing No.000004 for Rs.10,00,000/- on 21.06.2022 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Agrahram, Amalapuram, towards discharge of the debt due to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant presented the said cheque in his bank, namely State Bank of India, Madhura Nagar Branch, Vi- 2 CC 1231/2022 Dt: 17.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

jayawada, for collection, it was returned with an endorsement that “ Dormant ISF (account inactive) on 23.06.2022 under a memo. Then, he got a legal notice issued on 02.07.2022 about dishonor of cheque to the accused promissory note address and residential address, said notices were returned with an endorsement “un- claimed” on 13.07.2022 and ‘intimation for 1st time’ and thereafter ‘door locked’ on 14.07.2022. Hence, the complainant was constrained to file the present case of- fence U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

3. After filing sworn affidavit of the complainant, this case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as re- quired U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C, explaining the substance of accusation made against him. His plea is one of total denial and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the complainant/Chavatapalli Tirumala Rao himself is examined as PW.1 and got Exs.P1 to P6 marked. Ex.P1 is Certified copy of promissory note for Rs.12,00,000/- dated 10.11.2019; Ex.P2 is Original Cheque bearing No.000004 for Rs.10,00,000/- dt:21.06.2022; Ex.P3 is Cheque return memo dt: 23.06.2022; Ex.P4 is Office copy of the legal notice dt: 02.07.2022; Ex.P5 is Returned cover of promissory note address dt: 14.07.2022; Ex.P6 is Returned cover of residential address dt: 13.07.2022. On behalf of the defense, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

6. After closure of the evidence on behalf of the complainant, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. His plea is one of total denial and he re- ported defence evidence. Inspite of several conditional orders the accused did not adduce any evidence, hence defence side evidence is closed. During 313 exami- 3 CC 1231/2022 Dt: 17.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

nation accused stated that “I never borrowed amount from the complainant but I borrowed amount from complainant’s wife.”

7. I have heard both learned counsels Sri.J.V.S.Narasimha Rao, for Com- plainant and Sri.D.Satyanarayana for accused. Both counsels have argued with equal vehemence. Perused the record and evidence as well.

8. Now the points for consideration are;

i)Whether the complaint for dishonour of cheque due to the reason

’Dormant ISF’ is maintainable under section 138 of NI Act ?

ii)Whether the complaint had succeeded to in establishing his case that, there is legally enforceable debt, and if so; iii)Whether the accused has dispelled the presumption as envisaged

under Sec.139 of N.I.Act with preponderance of probabilities?

9. Point No.1: Whether the complaint for dishonour of cheque due to the reason ’Dor- mant ISF’ is maintainable under section 138 of NI Act ?

The predominant contention of accused is that cheque dishonoured with the reasons Dormant ISF does not come under the purview of section 138 NI Act. So far this question is concerned, now it has to be seen whether complaint under section 138 NI Act even cheque is dishnoured due to reason ‘Dormant ISF’ (account inactive).

10. No whisper in the cross examination of PW1 that whether the accused has knowledge about that his account is in dormant condition. Added to it, it is not the case of accused that he has sufficient amount in the bank account/HDFC bank and that he was not having the knowledge of dormant condition at the time of issuance of cheque. No argument on part of the accused that had been advanced that the accused has sufficient means and he has no knowledge that his account was kept dormant. Here the cheque was apparently issued on 21.06.2022 and it was dishon- ored on 23.06.2022 and in the absence of fact that when the account was kept as dormant i.e., whether the account was in dormant condition prior to issuance of 4 CC 1231/2022 Dt: 17.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

cheque or after issuance of cheque and further as to whether the account of the accused was having sufficient amount to honour the cheque at the time of issuance of cheque or not. No material was placed before the court by the accused. Even he did not take steps to call for the bank manager of HDFC bank to prove that when his account was kept in dormant condition; and that whether he has knowledge about the dormant of his account as stated earlier. In the absence of such facts and material before the court regarding dormant condition, it cannot be said that the complaint for dishonor of cheque due to the reason ’Dormant ISF’ is not maintain- able. So, no material was placed before the court to prove such facts. Therefore, it can be safely said that the accused has knowledge that his account was kept as dormant and intentionally issued cheque. In this regard, it is worth to remind the authority in case of Ajithsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC On- line SC 77 dated 29.01.2024 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “ In a case where a cheque was dishonoured under section 138 NI Act for insufficient and account dormant, section 138 NI Act would apply. ” Therefore, taking the assistance of authority and having the discussion made inter alia the court unhesitatingly came to a conclusion that the complaint under section 138 NI Act is maintainable if the cheque is dishonoured due to reason ‘Dormant ISF’. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

11. Points No.2 and 3: Points No.2 and 3 are going to be discussed together as they are inter connected to each other and in order to avoid repetition of evidence and for it’s better appreciation.

In order to ascertain whether the accused has committed the offence U/ sec.138 of NI Act and before deciding the issuance of cheque towards the discharge of legally enforceable debt, I would like to state whether all the indispens- able ingredients constituting the offence have been proved by the complainant. The offence U/sec.138 of NI Act has the following ingredients i.Existence of legally enforceable debt or liability; ii.The drawer of the cheque issued the cheque to satisfy part or whole of the debt; iii. The cheque so issued has been returned due to insufficiency of funds; iv.Dishonor of cheque in question which must have been drawn on account maintained by the ac- cused; 5 CC 1231/2022 Dt: 17.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

v.Service of statutory/demanding notice seeking the payment of cheque amount within 15 days from the date of service of notice. vi.Non payment of cheque amount within 15 days from the date of service of notice.

12.It is alleged in the complaint that complainant lent an amount of

Rs.12,00,000/-, to the accused on 10.11.2019, for which the accused had issued one cheque on 21.06.2022 and he presented the cheque on that date, but it was returned on 23.06.2022 with an endorsement “account dormant” (account inactive). Thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice dated 02.07.2022.

13.1)Learned counsel for the complainant would maintain that, when the accused did not disputes his signatures on cheque, pronote and execution of those instruments is proved, thus, necessarily presumption goes in favour of the complainant, which lead to an inference that, there was merit in the complainants version that, he lent the amount to the accused and in discharge of the said legally enforceable debt, accused has issued a cheque under Ex.P2. It is further main- tained by the learned counsel for the complainant by referring to the evidence, both oral and documentary, he let in that, the Court shall presume unless the contrary is proved that, every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that the holder of the cheque received the same for discharge of whole or in part of any debt or liability. Said presumption is rebuttable in nature

U/Sec 139 of N.I.Act. He also would contended that nothing was elicited by the accused except denying the case as set out by him.

13.2)Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has conceded that, no amount was borrowed from PW.1 by the accused, at any point of time, and he did not issue any cheque/Ex.P2 as contended by PW.1. In that case, the accused can either show that non existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. The accused has also an option to prove either by letting in evidence or in some clear and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is the avernments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by 6 CC 1231/2022 Dt: 17.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

the complainant during the trail. Once such rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant and, thereafter, the presumption under section 139 of the Act will not again come to the complainant's rescue.

14. Presentation of impugned cheque/Ex.P2 for encasement and dishonor of the cheque for the reason “ACCOUNT DORMANT” is not disputed as it is matter of record by the cheque return memo dated 23.06.2022 under Ex.P3. Therefore it is matter of record and has been proved that the cheque was presented within it’s validity period and dishonored by the banker.

Oral Evidence:

15. The learned counsel for accused would maintained that there is no legally enforceable debt between the accused and complainant. Now, it has to see the oral evidence and whether complainant is able to prove legally enforceable debt. In order to substantiate his contention the complainant by name Chavatapalli Tirumala

Rao is examined as PW1. PW1 reiterated the contents of complaint in his chief examination. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated with documentary evidence i.e.,

Exs.P1 and P2. During the cross examination of PW1 he stated that he lent amount to the accused for his family expenses and pronote was executed at his (PW1) house in the presence of four members i.e., accused, scribe and attestors of

Ex.P1/pronote. The evidence of PW1 categorically revealed that the accused is a distant relative. Significantly, the learned counsel for accused suggested to PW1 as follows: “It is not true to suggest that no transaction between me and the accused under Ex.P1/pronote and it was given to me for the previous transaction.” So this itself shows that the accused has acquaintance with the complainant and relative as well; and that the signature on the pronote is signature of the accused and he voluntarily has given it to the complainant. The oral evidence of PW1 coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Ex.P1/pronote which clinchingly proves the transaction between the complainant and accused.

7 CC 1231/2022 Dt: 17.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

16.1) So far as service of legal notice is concerned, on careful perusal of Exs.P5 and P6/returned postal covers. They returned with an endorsements i.e., intimation for the 1st time and door locked which is sent to the pronote address of the accused; and 2nd notice which is sent to the Adhaar card address of the accused is returned with endorsement ‘unclaimed’. So, I feel it is appropriate to remind section 27 of

General Clauses Act and case of Ajith seed ltd v. K.Gopala Krishnaiah 2014 AIR (SCW) 4321 wherein the Hon’b’e Apex Court held that as under:

“14. Sec. 27 give rise to a presumption that service of notice has been affected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In view of the said presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been affected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. This court has already held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement ‘refused’ or not available in the house or house locked’ or shop closed’ or ‘addressee not in station’, due service has to be presumed. It is, therefore, manifest that in view of the presumption available under section 27 of the act, it is not necessary to aver in the complaint under section 138 of the Act that service of notice was evaded by the accused or that the accused had a role ot play in the return of the notice unserved.”

Section 27 of General Clauses Act: Meaning of service by post:

“Where any general Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression serve or either of the expressions give or send or any other expression is sued, then, unless a different intention appears, the services shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing , pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.” 16.2) Once a demand notice issued under the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 to the accused in case of dishonour of cheque is dispatched by the post to the correct address, as a part of the payee/complainant is over and the notice is served on the defaulter/accused as per the presumption U/sec. 27 of General Clauses Act unless proved to contrary. So, section 27 gives raise to presume that the service of notice has been affected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post.

No suggestion was put to PW.1 that the accused is not residing in the address as mentioned in the legal notice/Ex.P4 dt:02.07.2022. On careful perusal of return cover/Exs.P5 and P6 those legal notices were returned with endorsements that 8 CC 1231/2022 Dt: 17.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

‘intimation’ and ‘unclaimed’. When accused did not deny the fact that he is not re- siding in the same addresses to which legal notices were sent and complainant is- sued to the accused to correct address, thus a presumption under section 27 is to be drawn that accused is deemed to have been received the legal notice. Taking the assistance of the authority referred above, the contention of the accused is not tenable under law. Therefore keeping in view of the above discussion, it can be safely said that undoubtedly notice under section 138(b) of NI Act is mandatory as rightly contended by the learned defence counsel and same was complied by the complainant herein. Therefore the accused has received the statutory notice/Ex.P4.

However, the accused did not choose to issue reply. If any person received the no- tice demanding him to repay huge amount of Rs.12,00,000/- such a person shall not be kept quiet without issuing reply to it. However, the accused in this case did not issue reply. Therefore the conduct of the accused is not that of the ordinary prudent’s man conduct. In absence of issuance of reply notice raising the financial capacity the accused is not permitted to raise the question in respect of financial capacity.

17.Added to the above, and with respect to above said contention it is appropriate to remind the authority held in case of Tedhi Singh vs. Narayan Dass Mahant in

Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2022 decided on March 7, 2022 wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that “Complainant need not show, in first, his financial capacity, unless accused sets up a case questioning complainant’s capacity in reply to statutory notice – Accused can set up such a case by producing independent materials or by pointing to materials produced by complainant himself or cross-examining witnesses of complainant-Court has to decide by appreciating totality of evidence. ”

Mere complainant stated that he has no proof to show that he had 12 lakhs rupees as on the date of Ex.P1/pronote. No single suggestion was put to PW1 that he has no fi- nancial capacity and he did not issue cheque/Ex.P2 in favour of complainant. In this re- gard it is appropriate to remind the authority in case of: Chakali manikanta Vs.

Hon’ble Election Tribunal cum Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram, Kadapa District

& others 2023 (3) ALD 825 (AP) wherein the Hon’ble High Court of AP at Amara-

vathi held that “failure to cross examine on important aspects-means opposite party accepts the con- tention as held in AIR 1961, Calcutta 359, this is not merely a technical rule of evidence, rule of essential jus- 9 CC 1231/2022 Dt: 17.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

tice-it serves to prevent surprise at tribe and miscarriage of justice.” Therefore, as stated supra as the accused nowhere denied his signature either on Ex.P1 or Ex.P2, the presumptions of existence of legally enforceable debt shall be drawn in favour of the complainant and the burden of proof is on the accused to rebut those presumptions.

18.Here the presumption is drawn in favour of complainant that pronote/Ex.P1 is supported with consideration and cheque/Ex.P2 was issued towards legally enforceable debt. Undoubtedly said presumptions are rebuttable presumptions and accused can rebut those presumptions either by adducing evidence or relying on the materials brought on record by the complainant. The defence raised by way of rebuttal evidence must be probable and capable of being accepted by the court. In this regard, it is appropriate to remind in case of "Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar", reported as 2019(4) SCC 197, had held that “the Court shall presume the liability of the drawer of the cheque for the amount for which the cheque is drawn ”. Therefore it can be safely concluded that because of handing over of the pronote and cheque for the purpose of previous transaction and in absence of proof of discharge of said debt would not extricate the accused from the discharge of liability arising from such cheque/Ex.P2. Even if we take the arguments raised by the accused at face value that cheque was issued to for security purpose for the previous transaction, yet the statutory presumption cannot be obliterated. In this regard it is worth to remind the judgment of larger bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of M/S. Kalamani Tex & ANR Vs. P. Balasubramanian on 10-02-2021

Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2021 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.

1876 of 2018) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :

“Even a blank cheque leaf voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused towards sum payment, would attract presumption U/sec. 139 of NI Act, in the absence of cogent evidence to show that cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt”.

Further held that “once issuance of cheque and signature admitted it, is required to presume that cheque was issued as a consideration for legally enforceable debt”.

Section 139 of N.I Act empowers the court to presume that holder of the cheque received it for discharge of any debt or liability. Therefore, since the accused herein admitted his signature in cheque/Ex.P2 the presumption under sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act can be inferred that Ex.P2/cheque was issued for consideration and for discharge of legally enforceable debt. The learned counsel for the accused has cross- 10 CC 1231/2022 Dt: 17.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

examined the PW.1 at length but nothing has been suggested to discredit the trustwor- thiness of PW.1 regarding transaction between him and the accused . Thus, the con- tention of the accused that, PW.1 has issued cheque towards security, would also not exonerated him from his liability under sec. 138 NI Act.

19. A point is to be noted that when complainant successfully discharged initial burden cast on him. The accused did not deny his signature on the cheque/Ex.P2 and the account maintained by him; and that cheque in question issued in favour of the complainant which is drawn on account maintained by the accused for a sum of

Rs.12,00,000/-. The said cheque was presented in the Bank concerned within the period of it’s validity and was returned unpaid for the reason of balance being insufficient. So, the court can safely held that all the essential ingredients of Section 138 are proved by the complainant. Thus, a presumption that when a cheque is drawn out, it will raise a presumptionthat it is drawn towards a consideration which is a legally recoverable amount. Thus, onus is on accused to raise a probable defence and standard of proof for rebutting presumption is on preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, it is required to be presumed that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheque/Ex.P2 i.e., the complainant received the same in discharge of legally enforceable debt. The onus, therefore, shifts on the accused to establish a probable defence so as to rebut such a presumption.

20. As discussed in the preceding paras the complainant has proved his initial burden and issuance cheque/Ex.P2. Thereby presumption under section 139 of

Negotiable Instrument Act drawn, that the Negotiable Instrument/cheque/Ex.P2 had been made or drawn for consideration. It is further observed that under sec. 139 of

NI Act the court has to presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of cheque received it for discharge in whole or part of a debt or liability. However, said presumption is rebuttable in nature. And the burden of proving that the cheque has not been issued for a debt or liability on the accused.

11 CC 1231/2022 Dt: 17.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

21. In the present case, no evidence has been lead by accused to rebut the presumption has been drawn infavor of the complainant either by adducing his evidence directly or by relying on the material brought by the complainant. The story put forward by the accused that he gave cheque and pronote to the complainant for the previous transaction, is not believable, in the absence of evidence to rebut those presumptions. In other words, accused has not placed cogent material to rebut the said presumption. As such, this contention of the accused holds no water.

22.The discussion made in teralia, ocular and documentary evidence clearly indicate that there was a transaction between the the accused and complainant towards which a legally recoverable debt was claimed by the complainant and the cheque issued by the accused was presented. On such cheque being dishonored, cause of action had arisen for issuing a notice and presenting the criminal complaint u/s 138 of NI Act on the payment not being made. Therefore, this court hold that cheque is an acknowledgment of liability.

23. The accused failed to brought out by way of rebuttal evidence, the circumstances, under which a false case has been filed against him by PW.1, and how his cheque came into the hands of complainant apart from the fact that, he failed to rebut the presumption available under Sec.139 of NI Act. Therefore, without hesitation the court accepting the contention of PW.1 that, he lent the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- based on pronote/Ex.P1 and in discharge of the said amount, accused has issued cheque for the above said amount which was dishonored when presented with an endorsement of ‘ACCOUNT DORMANT’ and consequently a presumption has been drawn in favor of complainant that accused has issued the cheque towards legally enforceable debt.

24.In the cross-examination of PW.1, the accused neither denied nor suggested to PW.1 that Ex.P2/ cheque does not belong to the accused and it was not drawn on the account maintained by him. Since, it is not in dispute that, Ex.P2/cheque is 12 CC 1231/2022 Dt: 17.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

drawn account maintained by the accused at HDFC Bank, Amalapuram contains his signature. Under these circumstance presumption contemplated U/sec.139 of

Negotiable Instrument Act would draw in favor of complainant that, it was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. The learned advocate for the accused has cross-examined the PW.1 at length but nothing has been suggested to discredit the trustworthiness of PW.1 regarding transaction between him and the accused.

25. In that view of the mater, it is concluded that the accused has miserably failed to rebut the mandatory presumption drawn under section 139 of N.I Act in favour of complainant even on preponderance of probabilities, while the complainant had succeeded in proving his case beyond reasonable doubt.

Consequently, I found that, accused is guilty of the offence for issuing

Ex.P2/cheque towards legally enforceable debt, which was returned unpaid with an endorsement of “DORMANT ISF” with ill intention to deceive the complainant.

Therefore, the accused committed the offence U/s138 of NI Act, as such he is found guilty for the offence U/s. 138 of NI Act. Accordingly, points 2 and 3 are answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

26. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence U/s.138 of NI Act.

Accordingly, he is convicted U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C for the offence U/sec. 138 of NI Act.

Accused is called absent. Petition is filed and the same is dismissed. Hence issue

NBW against convict. For hearing on quantum of sentence, call on 17.04.2025.

Typed to my dictation, by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-.N.Jyothi

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

P.W.1: Chavatapalli Tirumala RaoNONE 13 CC 1231/2022 Dt: 17.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1 : Certified copy of promissory note for Rs.12,00,000/- dated 10.11.2019

Ex.P2 : Original Cheque bearing No.000004 for Rs.10,00,000/- dt:21.06.2022

Ex.P3 : Cheque return memo dt: 23.06.2022

Ex.P4 : Office copy of the legal notice dt: 02.07.2022

Ex.P5 : Returned cover of promissory note address dt: 14.07.2022

Ex.P6 : Returned cover of residential address dt: 13.07.2022.

FOR ACCUSED:NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Sd/-.N.Jyothi

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Vijayawada.

The accused is present and filed petition for recall of NBW, same is allowed.

Accused is present for hearing on quantum of sentence. Heard the quantum of

sentence.

When the accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him, he denied the offence against him. He has two female children who are studying 4th and 5th classes respectively . He is sole bred winner to his family and he is financially struggling due to this case. He was appearing for each and every adjournment.

Therefore, he requested the court to take lenient view by letting off or else he would suffer.

But, in the opinion of the court the accused does not deserve any such lenience in view of gravity and nature of offence proved against him. Hence, the facts and circumstance of the case and submissions of the accused it is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of probation of offender Act. But it would be just and proper to take reasonable view while imposing the sentence against the accused. Therefore following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

In the result, accused is found guilty of the offence under section 138 of Negotiable instrument Act. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of One (1) year for the offence U/ sec. 138 of NI Act and shall pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only), being 14 CC 1231/2022 Dt: 17.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

the cheque amount towards compensation U/sec.357(3) Cr.P.C, to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this judgment. In default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months.

The remand period if any undergone by the accused shall be set-off from the substantive sentence U/sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal and legal aid. Accused stated that he has means to engage counsel in appellate court. The office is hereby directed to furnish the copy of judgment to the accused forthwith.

Typed to dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-.N.Jyothi,

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Vijayawada.

15 CC 1231/2022 Dt: 17.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

Form No. 72

Calendar and Judgment District of Krishna District

Calendar of cases tried by the III Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Vijayawada

Judgment in Calendar Case No.1231/2022

Nature of Offence: Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act

Date of Judgment : 17.04.2025

Date ofDate of issue ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offenceprocess to ac-appearanceRelease ofcommencementclosure ofsentence or cusedof accusedaccusedof trialtrialorder 23.06.202224.08.202204.11.2022-06.11.202320.03.202517.04.2025

Explanation for the delay: Due to non production of witness

Judgment in Calendar case No.1231/2022 on the file of III Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Vijayawada. Complainant:Chavatapalli Tirumala Rao, S/o.Nagabhushanam, aged about 60 years, R/ o.D.No. 21-9/3-14, Pasuputhota Colony, 2nd Line, Madhura Nagar, Vijayawada- 520011, Krishna District.

Accused:Satti Nagababu, S/o.Dharma Rao, aged about 35 years, R/o.Aparna Heights, 3rd Floor, GSR Colony-2, Gandhi Nagar, Amalapuram, East Godavari District- 533201. Pleaded : Not Guilty Finding : Accused is found Guilty.

Sentence of order: In the result, accused is found guilty of the offence under section 138 of Nego- tiable instrument Act. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of One (1) year for the offence U/sec. 138 of NI Act and shall pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only), being the cheque amount to- wards compensation U/sec.357(3) Cr.P.C, to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this judgment. In default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. The remand period if any undergone by the accused shall be set-off from the substantive sentence U/sec.428 of Cr.P.C. The accused is informed about his right to pre- fer an appeal and legal aid. Accused stated that he has means to engage counsel in appellate court. The office is hereby directed to furnish the copy of judgment to the accused forthwith.

Sd/-.N.Jyothi,

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Vijayawada. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

1 CC 853/2023 Dt: 16.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: Smt N.Jyothi III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, the 16 th day of April, 2025

C.C.No.853/2023

Between: State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram P.S, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

… Complainant A n d:

1. Yalakurthi Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Bapaiah, aged about 53 years, R/o.D.No.24- 28-10, Sri Sailamvari Street, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

2. Yalakurthi Bhanu Prakash, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged about 26 years, R/o.D.No.24-28-10, Sri Sailamvari Street, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

… Accused

This case is coming on 09.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri.K.Anna Rao, Advocate for Accusedand upon hearing the Arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.216/2023 for the offence under Section 420

Indian Penal Code (herein after called, in short, IPC).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- 2.1) This is the case of cheating that was alleged to be committed by the accused, the defacto complainant by name Sasumilli Ramesh is a resident of SN

Puram, Vijayawada. Defacto complainant/LW.1 is running juice stall and his son

S.Sai Kumar/L.W.2 completed hotel management. L.W.2 and accused No.2 are classmates. L.W.2 has been informed that Accused No.2 joined in treasury 2 CC 853/2023 Dt: 16.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

department as outsourcing employee, with the influence of his father/accused No.1, in the year 2018. On that the complainant asked Accused No.1 to get job for his son, for which Accused No.1 replied that some amount to be spent for getting job.

Later, Accused No.1 and 2 came to his house and took an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and gave bond paper as security that they would provide job within 4 months to

L.W.2. However, they failed either to provide job or to repay the amount. Later the matter was placed before the elders, before whom the accused agreed to repay said amount on 18.10.2022, but they failed to upkeep their promise. Hence defacto complainant came to police station and gave report on 03.06.2023 at about 01.30 pm.

2.2)On the strength of report given by L.W.1, LW6/M.Durga Maheswara Rao, SI of Police, registered the case in Crime No.216/2023 for the offence under Section 420 IPC of SN Puram P.S., Vijayawada and investigated into. He examined the witnesses and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 5 respectively. During the course of investigation, he served notice under section 41-A CrPC to Accused No.1 and 2. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence under Section 420 IPC and issued summons to the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents are furnished to them in the open court on which prosecution relies. Accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The accused denied having committed any offence. Thereafter, charge under Section 420 IPC have been framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu, for which the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and got Exs.P1 to P3 marked. P.W.1/Sasumilli Ramesh is defacto complainant, P.W.2/Ambati Ramu,

P.W.3/M.Kiran Kumar, P.W.4/S.Venkata Sai Kumar. P.W.5/M.Durga Maheswara

Rao, SI of SN Puram PS. Ex.P1 is Report of P.W.1 dt: 03.06.2023; Ex.P2 is 3 CC 853/2023 Dt: 16.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

Acceptance agreement deed dt: 18.10.2022; Ex.P3 is FIR dt: 03.06.2023. On behalf of accused, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard arguments of learned A.P.P. for the prosecution and the learned counsel for accused. Perused the material and evidence available on record carefully. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted her arguments contending that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 420 IPC as such the accused may be convicted and appropriate sentence would be passed. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that no offence of cheating was committed by the accused and no documentary proof is filed by the prosecution showing that defacto complainant gave amount to the accused. Ex.P2 acceptance deed is created for the purpose of the case.

7. Now the point for determination is follows:

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 beyond

reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 420 IPC?

8. POINT :-

It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused made P.W.1 to transfer/gave amount to him dishonestly and fraudulently under the guise of getting job in the government sector for complainant’s son(L.W.2). L.W.2 has been informed that Accused No.2 got job in the endowment department as outsourcing employee and he get said job with the influence of Accused No.1. Having believed the words of Accused No.2, P.W.1 asked Accused No.1 to get provide job for L.W.2, for which Accused No.1 informed some amount is to be spent to get job. Having believed the words of accused the P.W.1 gave Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused No.1 4 CC 853/2023 Dt: 16.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

and 2. Thereafter, they came to know that there is no such job notification. Thereby they realized that they were cheated by the accused.

9.1) In order to substantiate its contention, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5 and got Exs.P1 to P3 marked. P.W.1 is the victim, P.Ws.2 to 4 are independent witnesses. P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.1 testified that P.W.4 and Accused No.2 are classmates in Intermediate. The evidence of P.W.1 is replica of his report in his chief examination. He stated that he paid Rs.1,00,000/- in the month of July 2018, Rs.3,00,000/- in six (6) instalments each for Rs.50,000/- in terms of cash with in a span of one month to the accused No.1 in the presence of wife of P.W.1. Having believed the words of accused No.1 that he would get job provided to L.W.2, he paid said amount to the accused. P.W.1 asked accused No.1 for several times, but he did not respond when P.W.1 along with LW4 went to the house of Accused No.1 to ask about job, at that time, he threatened them with dire consequences. Inspite of several requests he paid deaf ears. He neither refund the amount paid by P.W.1 nor get the job provided to L.W.2. Hence he gave report/Ex.P1. He further stated that the accused executed the agreement/ acceptance deed/Ex.P2 to repay amount of Rs.4,00,000/- but he failed to pay.

9.2) During his cross examination, he admitted that he omitted to state before the police that he gave Rs.4,50,000/- to the accused in instalments and about the dates of payments alleged to be made by him to the accused. Apparently and evidently Ex.P1/report given on 03.06.2023 and Ex.P2/acceptance deed is given on 18.10.2022. On careful perusal of Ex.P1/report there is a reference about

Ex.P2/acceptance deed, however for the reasons best known to P.W.1, he did not handover said acceptance deed to the police and there is no enclosure to it. Further

Ex.P1/report goes to show that it doesn’t reveal that he paid Rs.4,50,000/-. The allegation of complaint/P.W.1 is that they paid amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the accused in the year 2018 and the accused No.1 failed to provide job, as such accused No.1 and 2 jointly executed acceptance deed on 18.10.2022 which is very 5 CC 853/2023 Dt: 16.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

much prior to report/Ex.P1. If really Ex.P2/acceptance deed was executed on 18.10.2022 in favour of P.W.1 it would have been failed either at the time of giving report or at the time of filing charge sheet. Ex.P2/original acceptance deed is filed during course trial. The version of P.W.1 is that when he demanded accused No.1 and 2 both executed Ex.P2/acceptance deed. But on perusal of Ex.P2 it is allegedly signed by Accused No.1 only. So, apparently he is deposing false. The oral evidence is not corroborated with the contents of Ex.P2/acceptance deed.

10.On careful screening of Ex.P2, it shows that the accused No.1 gave promissory notes and those promissory notes are time barred, as such he gave new promissory note/Ex.P2 towards security. Therefore, this fact and other fact that non filing of Ex.P2 either at the time of charge sheet; and that not handing over

Ex.P2 to the investigating officer/P.W.5 at the time of giving report create a doubt in the mind of the court. In this regard, P.W.5 categorically stated and admitted that

Ex.P2/acceptance deed was not handed over to him by P.W.1 and he did not also collect Ex.P2 later; and that he did not conduct investigation that when, where stamp paper is purchased ; and that he did not conduct enquiry where Accused

No.2 is doing job. Significantly, P.W.5 deposed that P.Ws.2 and 3 herein are the attestors of Ex.P2/acceptance deed. Said statement created a doubt in the mind of the court that without collecting Ex.P2 how P.W.5 could say that P.Ws.2 and 3 are attestors of Ex.P2. So from the above said discussion, a doubt is created in the mind of court that really Ex.P2/acceptance deed was executed by the accused

No.1. Therefore, Ex.P2 is not believable in the absence of reasons for not handing over it to the police at the time of giving report and not filing the same along with the charge sheet. Added Ex.P2 is apparently executed in the year 2022 where as the report is filed in the year 2023. Hence Ex.P2 is clouded with doubts.

11.Now, it has to be seen whether the accused fraudulently and dishonestly made P.Ws.1 and 2 believe the words of accused and due to such fraudulent and dishonest intention of the accused P.Ws.1 and 2 paid the amount to him. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the Sections 415, 420 Indian Penal Code.

6 CC 853/2023 Dt: 16.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

Section 415. Cheating.— Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property, to any person, or t consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Section 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person delivered to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, on which is capable of being converted into a valuable security shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

On perusal of above said Sections 415 and 420 of IPC with naked eye it would indicate that to hold person guilty of offence of cheating, the prosecution must be shown that the intention of the accused was dishonest at the time of making the promise. Such dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfill the promise or failed to pay the amount. It is appropriate the remind authority held in case of Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh Vs.

Suryaparakasam and others 2022 Live Law (SC) 519 wherein his Lordships observed “Essential ingredients of offence on cheating are deception on the part of the accused or dishonest inducement by them, resulting in any person delivering any property to such accused or alteration or destruction of whole or any part of valuable security. Taking assistance of above said authority and on perusal of section 420 IPC with naked eye deception on part of the accused or dishonest inducement by the accused are sine qua non for attracting the offence under section 420 IPC. So, the essential ingredients of offence of cheating or deception on the part of the accused or dishonest inducement by them, resulting in any person/defacto complainant delivering any property to such accused or alteration or destruction of whole or any part of valuable security ”. Now the court has to see that offence of cheating is made out.

12. Evidence of P.W.1 is that Ex.P2 is scribed by Accused No.1 and attestors of

Ex.P2 are known persons to the P.W.1 for 10 years. On careful perusal of Ex.P2 it was purchased by P.W.1 and attestors are known person to him. It was executed in the year 2022 as per the version of P.W.1, whereas he gave report in the year 2023, however the reasons best known to him, he did not hand over it to the investigating officer at the time of giving report. So, Ex.P2/acceptance deed is not considered for the reasons execution of Ex.P2 is not duly proved.

7 CC 853/2023 Dt: 16.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

13.Ambati Ramu is examined as P.W.2, he stated that he gave Rs.50,000/- to

P.W.1 and at that he has been informed that he took said amount so as to give to

Accused No.1 who promised to get job provided to the son of P.W.1. His evidence categorically reveals that he was not present when P.W.1 said to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused and he has no documentary proof to show that he gave Rs.50,000/- to P.W.1. Admittedly, he omitted to state before the police that he gave Rs.50,000/- to P.W.1 and he acted as one of the attestors in Ex.P2.

14. M.Kiran Kumar is examined as P.W.3, who also deposed that he gave

Rs.1,00,000/- to P.W.1 so as to pay it to the accused. His evidence reveals that he has no documentary proof to show that he gave Rs.1,00,000/- to the P.W.1 and he omitted to state before police that he lend an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to P.W.1.

Further he omitted to state before the police about the date, month when P.W.1 gave alleged amount to the accused No.1. Stamp paper was purchased by P.W.1.

P.Ws.1 to 3 denied that they created Ex.P2/acceptance deed.

15.The son of P.W.1 is examined as P.W.4 who testified that P.W.1 is his father,

P.Ws.2 and 3 are his (father) friends. He and accused No.2 are friends who get job in the treasury department between 2017 and 2018. He corroborated with the version of P.W.1 in his chief examination at the time of accused promising to provide job to P.W.4 and when P.W.1 paid amount to the accused No.1, he was in

Goa. He admitted that he omitted to state before the police that Accused No.2 got job in treasury department between the years of 2017 and 2018. Surprisingly he stated that he came to know that P.W.1 gave some amount to the accused in respect of getting job but he doesn’t know how much amount gave to him. Witness adds that only Rs.40,000/- given to the accused in his presence and he was not present when P.W.1 alleged to be paid said amount to accused for getting job. He omitted to state before the police that accused No.1 took him to Secretariat on that they got hope they definitely get job.

8 CC 853/2023 Dt: 16.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

16.M.Durga Maheswara Rao, the then SI of Police, SN Puram Police station reiterated the contents of charge sheet in his chief examination. During his cross examination he admitted that he did not investigate about the financial capacity and income source of P.W.1; and that P.W.1 omitted to state before him that his wife was present when he said to gave amount to the accused; and that he did not conduct investigation when, where stamp papers have been purchased. He did not conduct enquiry where Accused No.2 is doing job. and that neighbors of P.W.1 are not examined by him. His evidence reveals that the houses of P.Ws.2 and 3 are within a distance of 3 and 2 km from the house of P.W.1. The house of P.W.3 is within a distance of 2.5 kms respectively from the house of P.W.1. The house of

P.W.4 is within the distance of 200 meters from the house of P.W.1. So the investigating officer did not choose to examine neighbours of P.W.1. He admitted that P.W.4 omitted state before him that he gave Rs.40,000/- to the accused in his presence.

17.The ld. counsel for defence has drawn the attention of pws.1 to 4 so also the investigating officer to such a omissions. The defence counsel duly proved said omissions and said omissions are material which affect the route of prosecution case. The prosecution failed to prove that P.W.1 borrowed an amount of

Rs.50,000/- from P.W.2, Rs.1,00,000/- from P.W.3, payment of Rs.40,000/- in the presence of P.W.4 so also alleged payments of Rs.4 lakhs to the accused. No documentary proof is adduced to show that P.W.1 paid Rs.4 lakhs to the accused under the guise of dishonest and fraudulent intention of the accused to get job in the endowment department except Ex.P2/acceptance deed. As discussed in the preceding paras the prosecution failed to prove the genunity of Ex.P2 inspite of serious dispute raised by the accused. Added to it there is a whisper about the pronotes and debt in Ex.P2/acceptance deed therefore a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the court regarding the offence alleged by the defacto complainant. As per the prosecution the alleged amounts were given to accused in 9 CC 853/2023 Dt: 16.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

the year 2018 where as report was given in the year 2023 without explaining sufficient reasons for delay in giving report to the satisfaction of the court.

18.Keeping in view of the discussion made inter alia, in this regard, I feel it is appropriate to refer the authoritative pronouncements, for better appreciation, which are as follows:

In Joseph Salvaraja vs. State of Gujarat and others (2011) 7 SCC 59, wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in

nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by the appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the appellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation”.

In Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another, 2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 775 (SC) - (2009) 8 SCC 751 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “This court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complaints attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal Courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil”.

The Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again held that growing tendency of complaints attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matter which is essentially and purely civil in nature. Coming to the case on hand the defacto- complainant version is that he gave an amount of Rs.4 lakhs to the accused under the guise of getting job where as he gave report in the year 2023. Further he stated that the accused executed acceptance deed/Ex,P2 to repay said Rs.4 lakhs. A point is to be noted that a person giving acknowledgment in writing for the past payment the complainant can institute civil suit for recovery of money instead of filing criminal case against the accused herein. Further a point is to be noted that mere failure to promise shall not give raise to punish the accused under section 420 IPC as stated in the above said authority for the reason that the dishonest and fraudulent intention must be from the inception. Then only the offence of cheating under section 420 IPC would attract. The report is given in the year 2023 after lapse of 4 years by creating Ex.P2/acceptance deed. It appears that said report absolutely is after thought. Further the defacto-complainant has opportunity to file suit for recovery of money. The defacto complainant came to the Criminal court 10 CC 853/2023 Dt: 16.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

without giving any explanation after lapse of 04 years. Therefore, it appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by the accused. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. So,the court safely held that purely civil dispute is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence so as to made the accused into his terms. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation against the accused.

19.Even after P.Ws.1 to 4 were cross examined by the defence and their evidence is impeached and not credible. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is not corroborated with one another and their evidence is not consistent. Thus, their evidence does not inspires confidence of the court. So, after culled out the oral and documentary evidence of prosecution, it can be safely said that the prosecution utterly failed to prove that the defacto complainant/P.W.1 transferred the amounts to the accused and accused made P.W.1 believed to transfer said amount under the guise of getting job and thereby they cheated them. Thus the prosecution is not able to prove the ingredients of offence of cheating, under

Section 415 IPC, against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused are entitled to acquittal for the offence under which they have been charged under Section 420 IPC. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has measurable failed to prove that the accused have committed the offence under Section 420 IPC. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

20.In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.

420 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

Accused, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of six (6) months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no property produced, no order as to property.

Typed to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-.N.Jyothi

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada 11 CC 853/2023 Dt: 16.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution: Defence:

P.W.1 : Sasumilli Ramesh NONE

P.W.2 : Ambati Ramu

P.W.3 : M.Kiran Kumar

P.W.4 : S.Venkata Sai Kumar

P.W.5 : M.Durga Maheswara Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution:Defence :

Ex.P1 : Report of P.W.1 dt: 03.06.2023NIL

Ex.P2 : Acceptance deed dt: 18.10.2022

Ex.P3 : FIR dt: 03.06.2023

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Sd/-.N.Jyothi

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

12 CC 853/2023 Dt: 16.04.2025

III AJMFC, VJA

Form No. 72

Calendar and Judgment District of Krishna District

Calendar of cases tried by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Vijayawada

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 853 /20 23

Nature of Offence: Under Section 420 IPC

Date of Judgment : 16.04.2025

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate of ReleaseDate ofDate ofDate of offenceReport ofapprehension ofon bailcommencementclosure ofsentence or Complainantaccusedof trialtrialorder Accused No.1/ 30.06.2023 & Prior toAccused No.2/Notice u/sec. 03.06.202303.06.202313.07.2023 41A Cr.PC05.08.202406.03.202516.04.2025

Explanation for the delay: -- Judgment in Calendar case No.853/2023 in Cr.No.216/2023 on the file of III Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

Complainant: The State, rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Satyanarayanapuram Police, Vijayawada.

NameofFather’sAgeReligionCallingResidenceMandal. accusedname

1. Yalakurthi Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Bapaiah, aged about 53 years, R/o.D.No.24-28-10, Sri Sailamvari Street, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

2. Yalakurthi Bhanu Prakash, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged about 26 years, R/o.D.No.24-28-10, Sri Sailamvari Street, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

Pleaded : Not Guilty

Finding : Found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 420 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of six (6) months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no property produced, no order as to property.

Sd/-N.Jyothi,

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

C.C.No. 36 of 2022 1 PJCJ-cum-MM, Vijayawada

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :: VIJAYAWADA.

Present:­ SRI.C.RAMANA REDDY,

Principal Junior Civil Judge­cum­Metropolitan Magistrate 

Firday, this the 3rd day of March, 2023. 

C.C.No.36/2022

Between:­ State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Ajith Singh Nagar PS.… Complainant.

And

… Accused.

This case is coming on 02.03.2023 for disposal before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Smt. P. Chamundeswari, advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides, and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T 

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Ajith Singh PS laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime number 568/2021 of Ajith Singh Nagar P.S., for the offences punishable under Section 324 of IPC and Sec. 75 of Juvenile

Justice Act.

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

(i) On 28.09.2021 about 06.00AM the defacto complainant Juturi Krishna

Chaitanya (LW1) left the house for market for attending vegetable business.

At about 09.30AM LW4/Gandikota Rama Devi who is mother of defacto complainant informed her over phone that her husband i.e., accused beat her minor daughter i.e., LW5/Juturi Mounika aged about 7 years and he left the house. Immediately the defacto complainant rushed to the house and asked LW5/Juturi Mounika that what happened, for which she replied that she left the house for tiffin purpose along with her neighbour aunty so the

C.C.No. 36 of 2022 2 PJCJ-cum-MM, Vijayawada accused beat her with the angriness with belt indiscriminately on her back, hands and also thigh parts. The accused also thrown her towards the wall side for which she left the house without informing the accused. The defacto complainant found some swelling injuries on forehead, right hand and back side of LW5/Juturi Mounika. She also observed that the belt which was used by the accused to beat the victim girl was in two pieces so she lodged report against the accused.

(ii) Basing on the report given by defacto complainant Juturi Krishna

Chaitanya(LW­1) a case in Cr.No.568/2021 under sections 324 of IPC and

Sec. 75 of Juvenile Justice Act was registered by LW­9 Smt. A. Durga Devi and investigated into. During investigation LW­9 Smt. A. Durga Devi has visited the scene of offence, observed the same and prepared its rough sketch and she also examined witnesses and recorded their statements. Then LW­9

Smt. A. Durga Devi served notice U.Sec. 41(A) on the accused directing him to appeared before the Court. LW­8/ Dr.P. Babuji who treated LW5/Juturi

Mounika issued her wound certified opining that the injuries received by her are simple in nature. Then on completition of investigation LW­9 Smt. A.

Durga Devi filed charge sheet against accused. 

3. After careful perusal of material on record and charge sheet case was taken on file under 324 of IPC and Sec. 75 of Juvenile Justice Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused relevant copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and charges under sections 324 of IPC and Sec. 75 of Juvenile Justice Act were framed read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C.No. 36 of 2022 3 PJCJ-cum-MM, Vijayawada

6.During trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 got marked Exs.P.1 and P2.

7.Since there is no incriminating evidence available on record against the accused, examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. 

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the entire material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the  accused for

the offence punishable under Sections 324 of IPC and Sec. 75 of

Juvenile Justice Act beyond all reasonable doubts” ?

POINT:­ 10. In order to establish that guilt of accused for offence punishable under Sections 324 of IPC and Sec. 75 of Juvenile Justice Act the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 who are the defacto complainant and victim and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. 

11.PW­1 deposed that the accused is her husband, the victim is her daughter and about one year back there was heated discussion between her and accused so she went to police station and police obtained her signature which is Ex.P1. PW­2 deposed that she does not remember that when her father beat her, but her father beat her once when she went outside without informing same to him. During cross examination PW­2 deposed that at the instance of her mother she deposed in her examination in chief that her father beat her. 

12. Since Pw.1 did not support the case of the prosecution, at the instance of the learned APP, she was declared as hostile witness and the learned APP was permitted to put questions in the nature of cross­

C.C.No. 36 of 2022 4 PJCJ-cum-MM, Vijayawada examination. Though cross examined nothing was elicited from her except getting marked her 161(3) Cr.P.C statement as Ex. P2. 

13. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution discloses that the material witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 not supported the prosecution case.

Since the material witness not supported the prosecution case, the prosecution not chosen to examine the other witnesses and the learned APP has given up their evidence as no purpose will be served even if they are examined and prosecution side evidence was closed.

14. The prosecution though examined P.Ws1 and 2 and exhibited

Ex.P.1 and P2, failed to place any incriminating evidence against accused.

Upon a conspectus of the facts and circumstances as well as discussion aforesaid, it is manifest that the evidence produced by the prosecution fails to bring home the guilt of the accused. Accordingly this point is answered.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offenses punishable under Sections 324 of IPC and

Sec. 75 of Juvenile Justice Act . His bail bonds if any shall stand canceled after six months of this judgment as per section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

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

Principal Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

C.C.No. 36 of 2022 5 PJCJ-cum-MM, Vijayawada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution Defence

P.W.1: Juturi Krishna Chaitanaya None P.W.2: Juturi Mounkia

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution

Ex.P.1: Signature of Pw.1 on the report. 

Ex.P.2: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.1.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence :  ­ NIL ­ 

Material Objects marked for :­ NIL ­ 

PJCJ­CUM­MM, VJA

C.C.No. 36 of 2022 6 PJCJ-cum-MM, Vijayawada

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDER CASE No.36 of 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE­CUM­ METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

1.Calender Case No: C.C.No.36/2022

2. Name of the complainant:SHO, Ajith Singh Nagar P.S. in Cr.No.568/2021 U/Sec.324 of IPC and Sec. 75 of Juvenile Justice Act.

3. Description of the accused:Juturi Bhargav, S/o Venkateswarlu, 28 years, Uppara, Block No.51, GF­7, XL Plant new apartments, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada

a) Offence: 28.09.2021

b) Complaint: 28.09.2021

c) Apprehension: 28.09.2021

d) Released on bail: 28.09.2021

e) Commencement of Trial: 29.09.2022

f) Closure of trial: 16.02.2023

g) Sentence or Order: 03.03.2023

6. Result:­ In the result, the accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offenses punishable under Sections 324 of IPC and Sec. 75 of Juvenile Justice Act . His bail bonds if any shall stand canceled after six months of this judgment as per section 437(A) Cr.P.C. 

7. Explanation for delay in the Court:­ This case was taken on file on 17.01.2022. On 28.02.2022 copies of documents are furnished to accused as contemplated u/s. 207 Cr.P.C. On 05.07.2022 the accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. On 29.09.2022 the prosecution evidence commenced and closed on 16.02.2023. Heard the arguments on 02.03.2023. Judgment pronounced on 03.03.2023. Hence, the delay is explained accordingly.

Principal Junior Civil Judge­cum­ 

Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

Copy submitted to:

1) The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Copy to:

1) The Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

2) The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Vijayawada.

1OS 199/2025 Dt: 21.04.2025

III ACJ(JD), VJA

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt.N.Jyothi, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Vijayawada.

Monday, this the 21st day of April, 2025

Original Suit No.199/2025

Between:-

Bolisetty Srinivasa Gupta, S/o.Late Dasaradhi, aged about 57 years, Business, R/o.D.No.61-8/1-7A, Police Colony, 1st Lane, Koti Nagar, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada, NTR District. … Plaintiff

And

Marepalli Venkata Ramana, S/o.Late Visweswara Sharma, aged about 60 years, Retired as a Assistant Sub Inspector, R/o.Flat No. 305, ‘B’ Block, Balaji Towers, Dimple Bar Street, Labbipet, Vijayawada-10. …Defendant

This suit came up on 21.04.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Sighakolli Giridhar, Smt Anne Jyothi, Sri Tadiboyina Rajesh, Advocates for Plaintiff and Defendant is remained exparte and the suit having stood over for consideration, this day, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.7,48,500/- based on promissory note dated 10.01.2023 executed by the defendant in favor of plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/-.

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

The defendant/Marepalli Venkata Ramana borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.01.2023 from the plaintiff for his family expenses, and executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff after receiving the consideration at Vijayawada, agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest at 24% per annum. Inspite of several demands, the defendant did not choose to discharge the suit debt on one pretext or other. Thereafter, the defendant issued cheque bearing no.251046 for Rs.5,00,000/-

dt: 19.01.2025 drawn on State Bank of India, M.G.Road Branch, Vijayawada towards

part payment and the plaintiff presented cheque in his banker State Bank of India, 2OS 199/2025 Dt: 21.04.2025

III ACJ(JD), VJA

Krishna Lanka Branch, Vijayawada on 21.01.2025 and the cheque returned with an endorsement ‘Funds insufficient’ under return memo on 22.01.2025. Hence the plaintiff got legal notice issued on 27.01.2025 through registered post. According to postal track consignment the defendant received notice on 28.01.2025 and kept quiet.

Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendant neither made his appearance nor filed the written statement. Thereby he was remained ex parte.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff/Bolisetty Srinivasa Gupta is examined himself as P.W.1 and got Exs.A1 and A2 marked. Ex.A1 is Original promissory note

dated 10.01.2023; Ex.A2 is Office copy of legal notice dated 27.01.2025.

5. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as

prayed for?

7. Plaintiff stated that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under

Ex.A1, agreeing to repay the amount together with interest at 24% P.A. and thereafter, in spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay it. Therefore, he was constrained to file this suit.

8. To prove the transaction under Ex.A1, the plaintiff has got examined himself as

PW.1, who has reiterated the contents of plaint in his evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 is remained unchallenged. As stated supra, in spite of giving sufficient time, the defendant failed to appear before the court and to file written statement. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1 is established that the plaintiff lent

Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A2/legal notice shows the demand of plaintiff to the defendant to discharge the suit debt and his failure to repay the debt. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

3OS 199/2025 Dt: 21.04.2025

III ACJ(JD), VJA

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.7,48,500/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on principal amount

Rs.5,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 21 st day of April, 2025.

Sd/-.N.Jyothi,

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Oral Evidence

For Plaintiff For Defendant

P.W.1 : Bolisetty Srinivasa Gupta NONE

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiff

Ex.A1 : Original promissory note dated 10.01.2023

Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice dated 27.01.2025

For Defendant: NIL

Sd/-.N.Jyothi,

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada.

1OS 175/2020 Dt: 21.04.2025

III ACJ(JD), VJA

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Smt.N.Jyothi, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Vijayawada.

Monday, this the 21st day of April, 2025

Original Suit No.175/2020

Between:-

Pottabathina Kavitha, W/o.Lakshmi Narayana, aged about 40 years, R/o.D.No.41-1/16- 5, Bapanaiah Nagar, Ranigarithota, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada. … Plaintiff

And

Nersu Lakshmi, W/o.Ranga Rao, aged about 50 years, R/o.D.No. 32-40/2-22, Maruthi Grand Bazaar, Karmika Nagar, Machavaram Down, Vijayawada. …Defendant

This suit came up on 21.04.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Puli Srinivasa Rao, Sri M.Venkateswara Rao and Smt Puli Sobharani, Advocates for Plaintiff and Defendant is remained exparte and the suit having stood over for consideration, this day, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.4,54,200/- based on promissory note dated 28.11.2017 executed by the defendant in favor of plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/-.

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

The defendant/Nersu Lakshmi borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 28.11.2017 from the plaintiff for her family expenses, and executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff after receiving the consideration, agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest at 24% per annum. Inspite of several demands, the defendant did not choose to discharge the suit debt and postpone the same on one pretext or other. Hence the plaintiff got legal notice issued on 06.01.2020 to the defendant and the same was returned with an endorsement ‘Intimation’ and kept quiet. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

2OS 175/2020 Dt: 21.04.2025

III ACJ(JD), VJA

3.As the service of summons is not effected through regular process the publication was issued by the court under the substituted service upon application filed by the plaintiff. Inspite of publication the defendant neither appeared before the Court nor filed the written statement. Thereby he was remained ex parte.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff/Pottabathina Kavitha examined herself as

P.W.1 and got Exs.A1 to A3 marked. Ex.A1 is Original promissory note dated 28.11.2017; Ex.A2 is Office copy of legal notice dated 06.01.2020; Ex.A3 is Returned cover .

5. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as

prayed for?

7. Plaintiff stated that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under

Ex.A1, agreeing to repay the amount together with interest at 24% P.A. and thereafter, in spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay it. Therefore, she was constrained to file this suit.

8. To prove the transaction under Ex.A1, the plaintiff has got examined herself as

PW.1, who has reiterated the contents of plaint in her evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 is remained unchallenged. As stated supra, in spite of giving sufficient time, the defendant failed to appear before the court and to file written statement. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1 is established that the plaintiff lent

Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A2/legal notice shows the demand of plaintiff to the defendant to discharge the suit debt and her fail- ure to repay the debt. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.4,54,200/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Two Hundred only) with 3OS 175/2020 Dt: 21.04.2025

III ACJ(JD), VJA

subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on principal amount

Rs.3,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 21 st day of April, 2025.

Sd/-.N.Jyothi,

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Oral Evidence

For Plaintiff For Defendant

P.W.1 : Pottabathina Kavitha NONE

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiff

Ex.A1 : Original promissory note dated 28.11.2017

Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice dated 06.01.2020

Ex.A3 : Returned Cover.

For Defendant: NIL

Sd/-.N.Jyothi,

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada