Smt.Nettem Radhika

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE –CUM –

MAHILA MAGISTRATE (JUVENILE COURT), VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT :- SMT. NETTEM RADHIKA

II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- cum-Mahila Magistrate (Juvenile Court), Vijayawada.

(Tuesday, this the 21st day of April, 2026)

C.C.No.1449/2023

Between :

Gadidesi Vidyasagar Babu @ Vidyasagar ... Complainant

AND

Badugu Jogeswara Rao … Accused

This Case came up before me for final hearing on 08.04.2026 in the presence of Sri D.Domnic Moses, Advocate for Complainant and of Sri V.Subbarao, Advocate for Accused; upon hearing the Arguments of both sides; upon perusing the record and having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:- - :: J U D G M E N T :: -

This is a Complaint filed by the Complainant u/s.190 and 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Herein after refer as Cr.P.C for brevity) for the offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (Herein after refer to as NI

Act for brevity) against the Accused.

1 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

2.THE CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT IS AS FOLLOWS :-

(i) On 20.01.2019 the Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees

Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) from the Complainant for his business purpose and family expenses by way of hand loan in the presence of Vallapu

Vijay S/o Yesupadham and Merugu Sukumar Babu S/o Vijay Raju agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest @24% P.A. either to the

Complainant or his order on demand, subsequently Accused failed to pay the amount to the Complainant .

(ii) On repeated demands made by him, the Accused has issued a cheque dt.15.04.2019 and the cheque bearing No:085263 for an amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of the Complainant drawn on Syndicate Bank (A/c.No.630601542841), Machavaram, Vijayawada towards part payment of the above loan. The Accused requested the Complainant to present the said cheque on the same day itself i.e. 15.04.2019 representing that there are sufficient funds in his account. On that the Complainant presented the above said cheque through his banker i.e. ICICI Bank Ltd, Vijayawada for collection, but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement “Account Blocked” with a Memo dt.16.04.2019 issued by Accused Banker and the same was communicated to the Complainant from his Banker on the same day. The

Complainant informed the same to the Accused through phone, the Accused has taken the dishonoured Cheque, paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the

Complainant by way of cash and issued four (4) post dated cheques infavour 2 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 of Complainant i.e.drawn on Syndicate Bank, Machavaram Branch,

Vijayawada 1) cheque bearing No.144521, dt.15.08.2019 for an amount of

Rs.31,500/-, 2) cheque bearing No.144522, dt.15.09.2019 for an amount of

Rs.32,250/-, 3) cheque bearing No.144523, dt.15.10.2019 for an amount of

Rs.33,000/-, 4) cheque bearing No.144524 dt.15.11.2019 for an amount of

Rs.29,250/-(Sic 29,500/-) for the part payment representing that there are necessary funds in his account.

(iii) The Complainant presented the cheque bearing No.144524 dt.15.11.2019 for an amount of Rs.29,250/- (Sic 29,500/-) on 21.11.2019 through his banker i.e. ICICI Bank Ltd, Benz Circle, Vijayawada for collection, but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” vide memo dt.22.11.2019 issued by Complainant ’s Bank.

(iv) The Complainant got issued legal notice on 26.11.2019 to the Accused y residence address and office address informing about the dishonour of cheque and demanded to pay the amount covered under above cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice; and that the said notices were returned on 29.11.2019 with an endorsement “Unclaimed and

Intimation Served” and the complainant’s Counsel received the same on 03.12.2019. The Accused did not choose to either to repay the amount or to give reply. The Accused having knowledge that there are no funds in his account, but still issued a cheque with dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the Complainant. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint praying 3 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 the Court to punish the Accused for the offence U/s.138 and 142 of N.I. Act and to award compensation Under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

3.On receipt of the Complaint, this Court took the case into cognizance for the offence u/s.138 of NI Act against the Accused and issued summons. After receipt of summons the Accused made his appearance through the learned counsel. Copies of the case documents furnished to the Accused as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C. He was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusation for the offence u/s.138 of NI Act was read over and explained to the Accused, for which he denied and claimed to be tried and the matter was posted for trial.

TRIAL:

4.During trial, the Complainant himself examined as PW.1 and got examined one V.Vijay, who is said to be the witness at the time of Hand loan as PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5.

5.After closure of the evidence let in by the Complainant , the Accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of Complainant/PW.1 and PW.2, for which the plea of the Accused is denial in toto and reported for defence evidence, subsequently reported “No Defence evidence”, hence defence evidence was closed on 02.03.2026.

4 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

6.The learned counsel for Complainant relied upon the following

Judgments:-

1)“Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S.Borcar and Another Reported 2025 INSC 1158,

2) Josepgh Jose Vs. J.Baby and State of Kerala Reported 2002 CRILJ4392,

3) Priyanka Kumari Vs.Shailendra Kumar Reported on 13 th October, 2023,

4) K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another AIR 1999

Supreme Court 3762,

5) G.Venkataramanaiah Vs. Sillakollu Venkateswarlu and Another 1998(2)

ALD (Crl.) 689 (AP),

6) Upohar International Pvt. Ltd., and Another Vs. State of A.P and Another” 1997(1) ALD (Crl.) 30 (A.P.) (D.B.).

7. The learned counsel for Complainant relied upon the above judgments and submitted that the Complainant is entitled for the presumption U/s.139 of

N.I.Act; and that it is for the Accused to rebut the presumption but Accused failed to rebut the same, hence the case of the Complainant is to be believed and the Accused is liable for conviction for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act.

8.Heard the learned counsel for Complainant and learned counsel for

Accused. Both have filed written arguments reiterating the case of the

Complainant. The testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P1 to P5.

9.NOW THE POINT FOR MY DETERMINATION IS, “Whether the

Complainant has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence u/s.138

5 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 of NI Act, 1881 beyond reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:

11.In order to determine the above said point the Complainant has to prove the following:-

i) Whether Ex.P1/Cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt?

ii) Whether the Complainant presented Ex.P1/Cheque to the

Bank within the Stipulated period as required U/Sec.138(a) of NI Act?

iii) Whether the Complainant got issued Ex.P3/Legal Notice to

the Accused within the stipulated period for dishonor of Ex.P1/Cheque as required U/Sec.138(b) of NI Act, if so,

whether the same was served upon the Accused?

iv) Whether the Return Endorsement made by the Bank

Authorities on Ex.P1/Cheque Return Memo would attract the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act?

v) Whether the Accused is liable for conviction for the offence Sec.138 of NI Act?

12.It is pertinent to extract hereunder Sec.138 & 139 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, 1881 which are as follows:-

Sec.138: Dishonour of Cheque for insufficiency etc., of funds in

the account:

Where any Cheque drawn by a person on an account

maintained by him with a Banker for payment of any amount of

money to another person from out of that account for the

6 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is

returned by the Bank unpaid, either because of the amount of

money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to

honour the Cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to

be paid from that account by an agreement made with that

Bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an

offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of

this Act,be punished with imprisonment for a term which may

extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the

amount of the Cheque, or with both:

PROVIDED that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:

(a)the Cheque has been presented to the Bank within a period of

six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period

of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b)the payee or the holder in due course of the Cheque, as the

case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said

amount of money by given a notice in writing, to the drawer of

the Cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by

him from the Bank regarding the return of the Cheque a unpaid;

and

(c)the drawer of such Cheque fails to make the payment of the

said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the

holder in due course of the Cheque within fifteen days of the

receipt of the said notice.

EXPLANATION: For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.”

Sec.139: Presumption in favour of holder:

7 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder

of the Cheque received the Cheque of the nature refer to in

Sec.138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or

other liability.

13. I now to proceed to consider the same as under by Point wise:-

14. POINT No.(ii):

Whether the Complainant presented Ex.P1/Cheque to the Bank

within the Stipulated period as required U/Sec.138(a) of NI Act?

14.1.It is the evidence of PW.1 that the Accused issued Ex.P1/Cheque on 15.11.2019 for Rs.29,250/- and he presented the same in his Banker i.e.

ICICI Bank Limited, Benz circle Branch, Vijayawada for collection on 21.11.2019. A perusal of Ex.P2/Cheque Return Memo, it is clear that

Ex.P1/Cheque was dishonored on the ground “ Funds Insufficient ”, but not on the ground that Ex.P1/Cheque was presented beyond the period of limitation.

14.2. From the entire cross examination of PW1, it is not the case of the

Accused that PW1 did not present Ex.P1/Cheque in his Banker. Further, there is no suggestion to PW1 in his entire cross examination that he did not present Ex.P1/Cheque within the time stipulated. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that PW.1 has presented Ex.P1/Cheque with his Banker within the time stipulated as required u/s.138(a) of NI Act, 1881. Accordingly, this Point is answered in favour of Complainant and against the Accused.

8 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

15. POINT (iii)

Whether the Complainant got issued Ex.P3/Legal Notice to the Accused within the stipulated period for dishonor of Ex.P1/Cheque as required U/Sec.138(b) of NI Act, if so, whether the same was served upon the Accused?

15.1. PW.1 deposed that he received information about dishonor of Cheque from his Banker on 22.11.2019 and got issued Ex.P3 legal notice on 26.11.2019 i.e. within (5) days from the date of dishonor of the Cheque from the Bank.

15.2. According to section 138(b) of NI Act, 1881, the legal notice is to be issued to the Accused within (5) days from the date of information about dishonor of Cheque from the Bank. In this case on hand, a perusal of Ex.P3/ legal notice and that PW.1 got issued Ex.P3/legal notice to the Accused within (5) days from the receipt of information from the Banker about the dishonor of

Ex.P1/Cheque.

According to Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897, “if any notice

is sent to the person by way of Registered Post with

Acknowledgment due with correct address and it is returned on any

ground, it is a deemed service of the notice unless the contrary is

proved”.

15.3. It is the evidence of PW.1 that the Accused got returned Ex.P3/Legal notice dated 26.11.2019, the same was “unclaimed and intimation was 9 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 served” by the Postal Authorities to the Accused on 29.11.2019, but he kept quiet without complying the demand made by PW1. A perusal of

Ex.P5/Unserved covers disclose that the same was returned to sender as “Unclaimed and Intimation served”, which means refused; and that it is a deemed service, as such it is a valid service u/s.27 of General Clauses Act, 1897. In the cross examination of PW1, the Accused except suggesting that

PW1 obtained the above postal endorsement by managing the postal authorities, did not get any favourable answers to substantiate the same and place any cogent and convincing material to support the same.

15.4. In view of the above discussion this Court is of the considered opinion that the Complainant got issued Ex.P3/Legal notice to the Accused about the dishonour of Ex.P1/Cheque within the stipulated period of limitation as provided Under Section 138 of N.I Act, 1881 and the same was deemed to have been served on the Accused under Ex.P5. Accordingly this Point is answered in favour of Complainant and against the Accused.

16. POINT No.(iv):

Whether the Return Endorsement made by the Bank Authorities on Ex.P1/Cheque Return Memo would attract Sec.138 of NI Act?

16.1.It is the evidence of PW.1 that Ex.P1/Cheque was dis-honoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’; and that he got issued Ex.P3/Legal notice, but Accused got returned the same under Ex.P5/Returned registered 10 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 cover and he did not make any payment. It is not the case of Accused that as on the date of presentation of Ex.P1/Cheque by PW.1, he had sufficient funds in his Account. Further, the Accused did not make any suggestion that he has sufficient funds in his bank Account. From the evidence of PW1 coupled with

Ex.P2/Cheque return memo, it is clear that the Bank Authorities returned

Ex.P1/Cheque for the reason “Funds Insufficient” in the Account of Accused.

16.2. According to Sec.146 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, production of Bank Slip or Memo having thereon, the Official Mark denoting that the Cheque has been dis-honoured, the Bank slip or Memo is Prima-

Facie evidence and the Court shall presume that Cheque has been dis-

honoured. However, the said presumption is rebuttal presumption.

16.3.The Complainant by examining himself as PW.1 and by exhibiting Ex.P2/Cheque return memo has proved that Cheque was dis-

honoured due to the reason‘ funds insufficient’ in the Bank Account of

Accused. Section 138 of NI Act clearly stipulates that any Cheque has been returned by the Bank unpaid, because of the amount standing in the credit of that Account is “Insufficient” to honour the Cheque, it would attract Section 138 of N.I.Act. It is the evidence of PW.1 that he has issued Ex.P3/Legal notice to the Accused after receipt of Ex.P2/Cheque return memo. From the entire cross examination of PW.1, even there is no suggestion from the end of the Accused with regard to endorsement on Ex.P2/Cheque return memo.

11 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 16.4. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the endorsement “ funds insufficient ” made by Bank authorities on

Ex.P2/cheque return memo would attract Section.138 of NI Act. Accordingly this Point is answered in favour of Complainant and against Accused.

17. POINT No.(i)

Whether Ex.P1/Cheque was issued towards legally enforceable

debt?

17.1. PW.1 deposed that Accused borrowed Rs.2,50,000/-(Two lakh fifty

Thousand only) from him on 20.01.2019 for his family and business expenses by way of hand loan in the presence of PW2 and one M.Sukumar Babu, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. payable on demand either to PW.1 or his order on demand. It is the further evidence of

PW.1 that after several demands, the Accused issued an account payee cheque bearing No.085263 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 15.04.2019 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Machavarm, Vijayawada with the Accused account

No.630601542841 towards part payment of the above said borrowed amount from him and requested to present the said cheque on the same day itself representing that there are necessary funds in his account to honour the above said cheque; and that PW1 presented the above cheque for collection through his Banker i.e. ICICI Bank Limited, Benz Circle Branch, Vijayawada and the same was returned dishonoured on 16.04.2019 with the reason “Account Blocked”.

12 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 17.2. It is the further evidence of PW1 that immediately after receipt of information as to dishonour of cheque, he has communicated to the Accused through telephone, the Accused approached PW1 and taken back the above said dishonour cheque and paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- cash and issued four post dated cheques for the part payment i.e. cheque No.144521, dt.15.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.31,500/-(Pertaining to CC No.6462/22);

Cheque No.144522 dt.15.09.2019 for an amount of Rs.32,250/-(Pertaining to

CC No.6402/22); Cheque No.144523, dt.15.10.2019 for an amount of

Rs.33,000/-(Pertaining to CC No.6404/22) and Cheque No.144524, dt.15.11.2019 for an amount of Rs.29,250/-(Sic 29,500) (Pertaining to CC

No.1449/23 - Present case), all are drawn from Syndicate Bank, Machavaram,

Vijayawada by representing that there are necessary funds in his account to

honour the four cheques.

17.3. It is the further evidence of PW1 that he has presented the

Ex.P1/Cheque bearing No.144524 dt.15.11.2019 for an amount of Rs.29, 250/- on 21.11.2019 through his banker i.e. ICICI Bank, Benz circle Branch,

Vijayawada and the same was dishonoured on 22.11.2019 for the reason of “Funds Insufficient” with a memo endorsement dt.22.11.2019 by the Accused banker i.e. Syndicate Bank, Machavaram Branch, Vijayawada and the said information was communicated to the Accused by way of Ex.P3/Legal notice which was issued to residence address as well as office address, but the same are returned as Unclaimed and intimation served under Ex.P5/ 13 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

Unserved postal covers.

17.4. It is the contention of learned counsel for Complainant that the

Accused issued Ex.P1/cheque towards part payment of the debt under hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- borrowed by the Accused on 20.1.2019 from PW1 which is legally enforceable debt. It is the further contention of learned counsel for

Complainant that the Accused has been admitting his signature on

Ex.P1/Cheque and thus it can be presumed that Ex.P1/Cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt covered under the hand loan of

Rs.2,50,000/- dt.20.01.2019.

17.5. The learned counsel for Accused vehemently contended that PW1 used to conduct private chits, in which the Accused is one of the subscribers, he became prized subscriber of one of the chits, at the time of giving the prized chit amount PW1 obtained five blank signed cheques towards security for payment of remaining installments; and that he paid remaining installments, but he did not return the five cheques though the Accused requested him, but not returned the same under the guise that those cheques are not traced; and that by misusing five cheques PW1 fabricated

Ex.P1/Cheque and cheques in other criminal cases i.e. C.C. Nos.6462/2022, 6402/2022 and 6404/2023 and filed all four cases against him in order to harass him.

17.6. In this case on hand there is no dispute about the signature of 14 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

Accused on Ex.P1/Cheque. Further it is not in dispute that Ex.P1/Cheque belongs to Accused. In the cross examination PW1 categorically deposed that he never run the private chits. PW2 also categorically deposed that to his knowledge PW1 never run private chits and he never join one of the subscribers of the alleged chits. PW2 also categorically deposed that he along with one M.Sukumar Babu witnessed the transaction on 20.01.2019.

Though, the Accused cross examined PW1 and PW2 at length it is not the case of the Accused that the signature on Ex.P1/Cheque is not that of him.

Further from the cross examination of PW1 and PW2, it is evident that the

Accused has been admitting the signature on Ex.P1/Cheque.

17.7.When once the signature on the Negotiable Instrument is admitted, there arises a presumption U/Sec.118(a) and Section.139 of

Negotiable Instrument Act that the said instrument had been made (or) drawn for consideration. Under Section.139 of NI Act, the Court has to presume,

Unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of the Cheque received the same for discharge of, in whole or part of any debt or other liability. Thus, in compliance of Sec.138 of NI Act, the Court has to presume that Cheque had been issued towards discharge of debt or liability. However, this presumption is a rebuttable presumption. Though the burden to rebut the presumption on the Accused is not as high as that of presumption of burden of proof of prosecution, the burden of proving that a Cheque had not been issued for a debt or liability, is on the Accused by adducing positive evidence to 15 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

Probabilise the asserted fact.

17.8.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri

Mohan 1 Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the scope of presumption under 138 of NI Act and the relevant para is extracted here under:-

Para 14: “ In light of these extracts, we are in

agreement with the respondent-claimant that the

presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act

does indeed include the existence of a legally

enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the

impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan

Bhat(supra) may not be correct………. As noted in

the citations, this is of course in the nature of a

rebuttable presumption and it is open to the Accused

to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally

enforceable debt or liability can be contested.

However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial

presumption which favours the Complainant .

Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse

onus clause that has been included in furtherance of

the legislative objective of improving the credibility

of negotiable instruments. ……... In such a scenario,

the test of proportionality should guide the

construction and interpretation of reverse onus

clauses and the Accused/defendant cannot be

expected to discharge an unduly high standard or

proof. In the absence of compelling justifications,

reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary

1(2010) 11 SCC 14 16 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in

view, it is a settled position that when an Accused

has to rebut the presumption under section 139, the

standard of proof for doing so is that of

preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, if the

Accused is able to raise a probable defence which

creates doubts about the existence of a legally

enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail.

……...” 17.9.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh

Kumar 2discussed the Rangappa cases(supra) and held at para 37 as follows:- “ A meaningful reading of the provisions of the

Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular,

sections 20,87 and 139 makes it amply clear that a person

who signs a Cheque and makes it over to the payee

remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the

presumption that the Cheque had been issued for

payment of a debt or in dicharge of a liability. ……….. If

the Cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of

Section 138 would be attracked”.

17.10.The Hon’ble Supreme Courtof India inthe case of M/s.

Kalamani Tex & Another Vs. P.Bala Subramanian 3 discussed the

Rangappa and Bir Singh Cases (Supra) and held at para No.14 that :-

Para.14:- “………..The statute mandates that once the

signature(s) of an Accused on the Cheque/Negotiable

22019 (4) SCC 197 3(Crl.Appeal No.123/2021, dated 10.02.2021) 17 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

Instruments are established, then these ‘reverse onus ’

clause become operative. In such a situation, the

obligation shifts upon the Accused to discharge the

presumption imposed upon him……………".

In view of the above statutory presumptions, above judicial precedents and in view of the rival contentions of both sides, I now proceed to examine,

“Whether the Accused could rebut the presumption U/sec.139 of NI

Act” ?

17.11.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High Court of

A.P. in catena of decisions held that in order to rebut the statutory presumptions raised U/Sec.118 & U/Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the Accused must raise probable defence which must meet the standard of “Preponderance of Probability” and not mere possibility and a bare denial of passing of consideration, could not aid the case of Accused.

17.12.In order to rebut above statutory presumption, the Accused has

Banked upon the cross examination of PW.1 and PW2. The Accused has not adduced his evidence. In the cross examination PW.1 denied the suggestion that he has run private chits, the Accused is one of the members along with

PW2, the Accused participated in the said chit and became prized subscriber of one of the chits and also paid the remaining installments; and that at the time of giving the prized amount, PW1 obtained five blank cheques from the

Accused for security for repayment of remaining installments and he paid 18 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 remaining chit installments to PW1, but did not return the five cheques though the Accused requested him to return the same under the guise that those cheques are not traced; and that by misusing the five cheques, he has fabricated Ex.P1/Cheque and cheques in other criminal cases i.e. C.C.

Nos.6462/2022, 6402/2022 and 6404/2022 filed against the Accused in order to harass him.

17.13.From the entire cross examination of PW1 and PW2 the Accused could not get any favourable answers about the alleged chit business of the

Complainant /PW1. If at all the contention of the Accused is true, the Accused would have taken steps like issuance of legal notice or lodging of complaint against the Complainant and get back the signed blank cheques said to have been obtained by PW1 from the Accused in the course of alleged chit transaction; but the Accused did not take any such steps for the reasons best known to him.

17.14. When it is the specific contention of the Accused that PW1 has been running private chits and the Accused is one of the subscribers of chit, during running of said chit he became prized subscriber of one of the chits, at the time of giving prized amount the Complainant obtained five signed blank cheques towards security for payment of remaining installments; and that he paid remaining chit installments but PW1 did not return the five cheques though the Accused requested him to return the same under the guise that those cheques are not traced and that by misusing the same he has 19 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 fabricated Ex.P1/Cheque and other cheques in C.C. Nos.6462/2022, 6402/2022 and 6404/2022, it is for the Accused to place convincing and cogent material before the Court like who are other subscribers of the chits the quantum of each chit, the quantum of each installment and the duration of chit and so also mode of the payment of each installment and the quantum of amount he got towards prized amount. But the cross examination of PW1 and

PW2 are bereft of all those details. Further the Accused has not placed any material before the Court on all those aspects. Further there is no plausible explanation from the side of the Accused why he kept silent without taking any steps against PW1 as per law to get back the alleged signed blank cheques.

17.15. The evidence of PW2 is to the extent of that he along with

M.Sukumar were present at the time of hand loan transaction for

Rs.2,50,000/- on 20.01.2019 between PW1 and the Accused. The Accused though cross examined PW2 could not elicit any favourable answers as to raise doubt about the presence of PW2 at the time of said transaction and to doubt his veracity. The entire cross examination of PW1 and PW2 is unshaken in respect of the hand loan transaction dt.20.01.2019. Further in the entire cross examination of PW2 it is not the case of the Accused that

PW2 did not witness the hand loan transaction on 20.01.2019 and he has not elicited anything from him to doubt his presence at the time of transaction under the hand loan and to impeach his creditworthiness. Under these 20 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Accused by cross examining PW1 and PW2 failed to place any cogent and convincing material to substantiate the case of the Accused and to meet the standard of “Preponderance of Probability”.

17.16.In view of the above discussion this Court is of the considered opinion that the contention of the Accused that Ex.P1/Cheque was given to

Complainant towards security purpose during the course of alleged chit transaction and it was misused and fabricated by the Complainant is not believable and trustworthy.

17.17.In view of all the above attending circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Accused failed to rebut the presumption under

Section 139 of NI Act by placing cogent and convincing material to probabalize her defence.

17.18.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the Accused has issued Ex.P1/Cheque in favour of Complainant towards part payment of debt due under hand loan between PW1 and

Accused and it is legally enforceable debt. This Point is answered in favour of Complainant and against the Accused.

18. POINT No.(v)

Whether the Accused is liable for conviction for the offence

21 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

U/sec.138 of NI Act?

18.1. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings on Point Nos.(i) to

(iv), this Court is of the considered opinion that the Complainant has proved his case and the Accused failed to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of

Complainant U/s.139 of N.I. Act, 1881, by Probabalizing the defence taken by him; and that the Complainant proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, the Accused is liable for Conviction.

19.IN THE RESULT, the Accused is “found guilty” for the offence

U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act,1881 and accordingly he is convicted

U/sec.255 (2) Cr.P.C.

20.Heard the Accused on quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. The Accused pleaded that he is married and has two sons, who are aged about 23 Years and 17 Years respectively, the elder son has been pursuing final year B.Tech and the younger one has been studying second year

Intermediate, his wife has been running a small clothes shop at a Church; and that his presence is very much essential to look after his family. It is further submitted that he is doing Shamiyana business and earning meager amount.

He further submitted that he puts behind bars, his dependents will become orphans and prayed the Court to take lenient view. Considering the profession and family situation of the Accused prayed the Court to show mercy on him.

21.The learned counsel for Accused submitted that considering the small 22 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 business of the Accused, his wife and the age and studies of their both sons prayed the Court to show mercy on him and impose fine instead of sentence.

22. The offence proved against the Accused is U/sec.138 of NI Act, which is punishable with Imprisonment for a term which may extend to TWO(2)

YEARS or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of Cheque, or

with both. Hence, this Court is not inclined to take any lenient view in favour of the Accused.

23. The learned counsel for the Complainant has argued that this Court is having power to award compensation which is equivalent to twice the amount of Cheque U/sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C. On the other hand the learned counsel for the Accused vehemently argued that this Court has no power to award compensation and power to impose fine upto Rs.10,000/ only, in view of

Sec.29 of Cr.P.C.

24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somnath Sarkar Vs.

Utpal Basu Mallick and another 4, wherein their lordships held that:

"Section 138 of N.I.Act does not contemplate grant of

compensation and it envisages imposition of fine not exceeding

twice the amount of dishonoured Cheque and it is from and out

of this fine amount, the Complainant be compensated under

Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C." .

25.Further, it is a settled legal position that a Special Enactment prevails 42014 (1) ALT (Crl) 145 SC 23 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 over the General Law and the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a Special

Enactment.

26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Vijayan Vs. Baby 5, wherein their lordships held that:

“In regard to any prosecution for the offences punishable

U/sec.138 of NI Act, a I class Magistrate may impose a fine

exceeding Rs.5,000/- ( Now it is Rs.10,000/), the ceiling being

twice the amount of the Cheque” The Hon’ble Supreme Court

also observed that the object of 8.2014 (1) ALT (Crl) 145 SC

9.2012(1) ALD (Crl) 803 SC 26 OF 31 chapter XVII of the

Negotiable Instruments Act is both punitive as also

compensatory and restitutive. It provides a single forum and

single proceeding for enforcement of criminal liability by reason

of dishonour of Cheque and for enforcement of the Civil liability

for realization of the Cheque amount thereby obviating the need

for the creditor to move two different fora for relief. Some

Magistrate went by the traditional view, that the criminal

proceedings were for imposing punishment and did not exercise

discretion to direct payment of compensation, causing

considerable difficulty to the Complainant , as invariably the

limitation for filing Civil cases would expire by the time of

criminal case was decided. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also

observed that unless there are special circumstances, in all

cases of conviction, the Court should uniformly exercise the

power of levy fine upto twice the Cheque amount (keeping in

view the Cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9 %

per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss), and direct

payment of such amount as compensation; The uniformity and

consistency in deciding similar cases by different Courts, not

only increase the credibility of the Cheque as a Negotiable

52012(1) ALD (Crl) 803 SC 24 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

Instrument, but also the credibility of the Courts of the justice”.

27. The above judgment was also discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar case (supra) at paras No’s 20, 28 and 29, and also referred in M/s. Kalamani Tex Case (Supra).

28. In view of the above Judicial precedents, it is clear that this Court can impose fine upto twice the amount of dis- honoured Cheque and in that fine only, this Court has to award compensation to the Complainant under

Sec.357(3) Cr.P.C. This case is pending from the last Four (04) years. By considering the submissions made by the Accused, the mitigating circumstances and all the above facts into consideration, this Court is of the considered view that sentencing the Accused to imprisonment for a period of

ONE(1) YEAR and to pay a fine of Rs.45,000/-( Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only) would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ONE(1) YEAR and to pay fine of Rs.45,000/-( Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only) in default, the Accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for THREE(03) MONTHS. Out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs. 43,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand only) shall be paid to the Complainant towards compensation under Sec.357(3)

Cr.P.C., after appeal time is elapsed. The remaining amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) shall be paid to the State to defray expenses incurred in the prosecution, after expiry of appeal time.

25 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

29. The period of detention already undergone by the Accused (NIL) shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The Accused was informed about his right to prefer appeal against the conviction and sentence of this Court.

30. The copy of Judgment is furnished to the Accused, at free of cost, as contemplated under Sub-Section (1) of Section.363 Cr.P.C.

Partly dictated and partly typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 21st day of April, 2026.

sd/- N.Radhika

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE –CUM –

MAHILA MAGISTRATE (JUVENILE COURT), VIJAYAWADA

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Complainant :For Accused :

PW1: G.Vidya Sagar Babu @ Vidya Sagar NIL

PW2: V.Vijay

Documents marked

For Complainant For Accused

S.No.Description Date

Ex.P1Cheque 15.11.2019

Ex.P2Cheque returned memo22.11.2019 26 of 27

APKR050017742023

CC No.1449/2023

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 issued by Bank

Ex.P3Office copy of legal26.11.2019- NIL - notice

Ex.P4Postal receipts Two(2) in27.11.2019 number

Ex.P5 Unserved cover Two (2)03.12.2019 in number

Material Objects

-Nil-

sd/- N.Radhika

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE –CUM –

MAHILA MAGISTRATE (JUVENILE COURT), VIJAYAWADA

27 of 27

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE –CUM –

MAHILA MAGISTRATE (JUVENILE COURT), VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT :- SMT. NETTEM RADHIKA

II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- cum-Mahila Magistrate (Juvenile Court), Vijayawada.

(Tuesday, this the 21st day of April, 2026)

C.C.No.6402/2022

Between :

Gadidesi Vidyasagar Babu @ Vidyasagar ... Complainant

AND

Badugu Jogeswara Rao … Accused

This Case came up before me for final hearing on 08.04.2026 in the presence of Sri D.Domnic Moses, Advocate for Complainant and of Sri V.Subbarao, Advocate for Accused; upon hearing the Arguments of both sides; upon perusing the record and having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:- - :: J U D G M E N T :: -

This is a Complaint filed by the Complainant u/s.190 and 200 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Herein after refer as Cr.P.C for brevity) for the offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (Herein after refer to as NI

Act for brevity) against the Accused.

2.THE CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT IS AS FOLLOWS :- 1 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

(i) On 20.01.2019 the Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) from the Complainant for his business purpose and family expenses by way of hand loan in the presence of

Vallapu Vijay S/o Yesupadham and Merugu Sukumar Babu S/o Vijay Raju agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest @24% P.A. either to the Complainant or his order on demand. Subsequently he failed to pay the said amount to the Complainant .

(ii) On the repeated demands made by the Complainant , the Accused has issued an Account payee cheque bearing No:085263 dt.15.04.2019 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of the Complainant drawn on Syndicate

Bank (A/c.No.630601542841), Machavaram, Vijayawada towards part payment of the aforesaid promissory note debt. The Accused requested the

Complainant to present the said cheque on the same day itself i.e.

15.04.2019 representing that there are sufficient funds in his account. On that the Complainant presented the above said cheque through his banker i.e.

ICICI Bank Ltd, Vijayawada for collection, but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement “Account Blocked” with a Memo of Endorsement dt.16.04.2019 issued by Accused Banker and the same was communicated to the Complainant from his Banker on the same day. The Complainant informed the same to the Accused through phone, the Accused has taken the dishonoured Cheque, paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant by way of cash and issued four (4) post dated cheques infavour of Complainant i.e. drawn on Syndicate Bank, Machavaram Branch, Vijayawada. 1) cheque 2 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 bearing No.144521, dt.15.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.31,500/-, 2) cheque bearing No.144522, dt.15.09.2019 for an amount of Rs.32,250/-, 3) cheque bearing No.144523, dt.15.10.2019 for an amount of Rs.33,000/-, 4) cheque bearing No.144524 dt.15.11.2019 for an amount of Rs.29,250/- for the part payment representing that there are necessary funds in his account.

(iii) The Complainant presented the cheque bearing No.144522 dt.15.09.2019 for an amount of Rs.32,250/-on 10.11.2019 through his banker i.e. ICICI Bank

Ltd, Benz Circle, Vijayawada for collection, but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” vide memo dt.11.11.2019 issued by Complainant’s Bank.

(iv) The Complainant got issued legal notice on 26.11.2019 to the residence address and office address of Accused informing about the dishonour of cheque and demanded to pay the amount covered under above cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice; and that the said notices were returned on 29.11.2019 with an endorsement “Unclaimed and

Intimation Served” and the Complainant ’s counsel received the same on 03.12.2019. The Accused did not choose either to repay the amount or to give reply. The Accused having knowledge that there are no funds in his account, but still issued a cheque with dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the

Complainant . Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint praying the Court to punish the Accused for the offence U/s.138 and 142 of N.I.Act and to award compensation Under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

3 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

3.On receipt of the Complaint, this Court took the case into cognizance for the offence u/s.138 of NI Act against the Accused and issued summons. After receipt of summons the Accused made his appearance through the learned counsel. Copies of the case documents are furnished to the Accused as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C. He was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusation for the offence u/s.138 of NI Act was read over and explained to the Accused, for which he denied and claimed to be tried and the matter was posted for trial.

TRIAL:

4.During trial, the Complainant himself examined as PW.1 and got examined one V.Vijay, who is said to be the witness at the time of Hand loan as PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5.

5.After closure of the evidence let in by the Complainant , the Accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of Complainant /PW1 and PW2, for which the plea of the Accused is denial in toto and reported for defence evidence, subsequently reported “No Defence evidence”, hence defence evidence was closed on 02.03.2026.

6.The learned counsel for Complainant relied upon the following

Judgments:-

1)“Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S.Borcar and Another Reported 2025 INSC 1158, 4 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

2) Josepgh Jose Vs. J.Baby and State of Kerala Reported 2002 CRILJ4392,

3) Priyanka Kumari Vs.Shailendra Kumar Reported on 13 th October, 2023,

4) K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another AIR 1999

Supreme Court 3762,

5) G.Venkataramanaiah Vs. Sillakollu Venkateswarlu and Another 1998(2)

ALD (Crl.) 689 (AP),

6) Upohar International Pvt. Ltd., and Another Vs. State of A.P and Another” 1997(1) ALD (Crl.) 30 (A.P.) (D.B.).

7. The learned counsel for Complainant relied upon the above judgments and submitted that the Complainant is entitled for the presumption U/s.139 of

N.I.Act; and that it is for the Accused to rebut the presumption but Accused failed to rebut the same, hence the case of the Complainant is to be believed and the Accused is liable for conviction for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act.

8.Heard the learned counsel for Complainant and learned counsel for

Accused. Both have filed written arguments reiterating the case of the

Complainant. The testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P1 to P5.

9.NOW THE POINT FOR MY DETERMINATION IS, “Whether the

Complainant has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence u/s.138

of NI Act, 1881 beyond reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:

11.In order to determine the above said point the Complainant has to 5 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 prove the following:-

i) Whether Ex.P1/Cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt?

ii) Whether the Complainant presented Ex.P1/Cheque to the

Bank within the Stipulated period as required U/Sec.138(a) of NI Act?

iii) Whether the Complainant got issued Ex.P3/Legal Notice to

the Accused within the stipulated period for dishonor of Ex.P1/Cheque as required U/Sec.138(b) of NI Act, if so,

whether the same was served upon the Accused?

iv) Whether the Return Endorsement made by the Bank

Authorities on Ex.P1/Cheque Return Memo would attract the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act?

v) Whether the Accused is liable for conviction for the offence Sec.138 of NI Act?

12.It is pertinent to extract hereunder Sec.138 & 139 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, 1881 which are as follows:-

Sec.138: Dishonour of Cheque for insufficiency etc., of funds in

the account:

Where any Cheque drawn by a person on an account

maintained by him with a Banker for payment of any amount of

money to another person from out of that account for the

discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is

returned by the Bank unpaid, either because of the amount of

money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to

honour the Cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to

be paid from that account by an agreement made with that

Bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an

6 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of

this Act,be punished with imprisonment for a term which may

extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the

amount of the Cheque, or with both:

PROVIDED that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:

(a)the Cheque has been presented to the Bank within a period of

six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period

of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b)the payee or the holder in due course of the Cheque, as the

case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said

amount of money by given a notice in writing, to the drawer of

the Cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by

him from the Bank regarding the return of the Cheque a unpaid;

and

(c)the drawer of such Cheque fails to make the payment of the

said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the

holder in due course of the Cheque within fifteen days of the

receipt of the said notice.

EXPLANATION: For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.”

Sec.139: Presumption in favour of holder:

It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder

of the Cheque received the Cheque of the nature refer to in

Sec.138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or

other liability.

13. I now to proceed to consider the same as under by Point wise:- 7 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

14. POINT No.(ii):

Whether the Complainant presented Ex.P1/Cheque to the Bank

within the Stipulated period as required U/Sec.138(a) of NI Act?

14.1.It is the evidence of PW.1 that the Accused issued Ex.P1/Cheque on 15.09.2019 for Rs.32,250/- and he presented the same in his Banker i.e.

ICICI Bank Limited, Benz circle Branch, Vijayawada for collection on 10.11.2019. A perusal of Ex.P2/Cheque Return Memo, it is clear that

Ex.P1/Cheque was dishonored on the ground “ Funds Insufficient ”, but not on the ground that Ex.P1/Cheque was presented beyond the period of limitation.

14.2. From the entire cross examination of PW1, it is not the case of the

Accused that PW1 did not present Ex.P1/Cheque in his Banker. Further, there is no suggestion to PW1 in his entire cross examination that he did not present Ex.P1/Cheque within the time stipulated. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that PW.1 has presented Ex.P1/Cheque with his Banker within the time stipulated as required u/s.138(a) of NI Act, 1881. Accordingly, this Point is answered in favour of Complainant and against the Accused.

15. POINT No.(iii)

Whether the Complainant got issued Ex.P3/Legal Notice to the Accused within the stipulated period for dishonor of Ex.P1/Cheque as required U/Sec.138(b) of NI Act, if so, whether the same was served upon the Accused?

8 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 15.1. PW.1 deposed that he received information about dishonor of Cheque from his Banker on 11.11.2019 and got issued Ex.P3 legal notice on 26.11.2019 i.e. within (16) days from the date of dishonor of the Cheque from the Bank.

15.2. According to section 138(b) of NI Act, 1881, the legal notice is to be issued to the Accused within (30) days from the date of information about dishonor of Cheque from the Bank. In this case on hand, a perusal of Ex.P3/ legal notice it is evident that PW.1 got issued Ex.P3/Legal notice to the

Accused within (16) days from the receipt of information from the Banker about the dishonor of Ex.P1/Cheque.

According to Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897, “if any notice

is sent to the person by way of Registered Post with

Acknowledgment due with correct address and it is returned on any

ground, it is a deemed service of the notice unless the contrary is

proved”.

15.3. It is the evidence of PW.1 that the Accused got returned Ex.P3/Legal notice dated 26.11.2019, the same was “unclaimed and intimation was served” by the Postal Authorities to the Accused on 29.11.2019, but he kept quiet without complying the demand made by PW1. A perusal of

Ex.P5/Unserved covers disclose that the same were returned to sender as “Unclaimed and Intimation served ”, which means refused; and that it is a deemed service, as such it is a valid service u/s.27 of General Clauses Act, 1897. In the cross examination of PW1, the Accused except suggesting that 9 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

PW1 obtained the above postal endorsement by managing the postal authorities, did not get any favourable answers to substantiate the same and place any cogent and convincing material to support the same.

15.4. In view of the above discussion this Court is of the considered opinion that the Complainant got issued Ex.P3/Legal notice to the Accused about the dishonour of Ex.P1/Cheque within the stipulated period of limitation as provided Under Section 138 of N.I Act, 1881 and the same was deemed to have been served on the Accused under Ex.P5. Accordingly this Point is answered in favour of Complainant and against the Accused.

16. POINT No.(iv):

Whether the Return Endorsement made by the Bank Authorities on Ex.P1/Cheque Return Memo would attract Sec.138 of NI Act?

16.1.It is the evidence of PW.1 that Ex.P1/Cheque was dis-honoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’; and that he got issued Ex.P3/Legal notice, but Accused got returned the same under Ex.P5/Unserved postal covers and he did not make any payment. It is not the case of Accused that as on the date of presentation of Ex.P1/Cheque by PW.1, he had sufficient funds in his Account. Further, the Accused did not make any suggestion that he has sufficient funds in his bank Account. From the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.P2/Cheque return memo, it is clear that the Bank Authorities returned Ex.P1/Cheque for the reason “Funds Insufficient” in the Account of

Accused.

10 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 16.2. According to Sec.146 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, production of Bank Slip or Memo having thereon, the Official Mark denoting that the Cheque has been dis-honoured, the Bank slip or Memo is Prima-

Facie evidence and the Court shall presume that Cheque has been dis-

honoured. However, the said presumption is rebuttal presumption.

16.3.The Complainant by examining himself as PW.1 and by exhibiting Ex.P2/Cheque return memo has proved that Cheque was dis-

honoured due to the reason ‘ funds insufficient’ in the Bank Account of

Accused. Section 138 of NI Act clearly stipulates that any Cheque has been returned by the Bank unpaid, because of the amount standing in the credit of that Account is “Insufficient” to honour the Cheque, it would attract Section 138 of N.I.Act. It is the evidence of PW.1 that he has issued Ex.P3/Legal notice to the Accused after receipt of Ex.P2/Cheque return memo. From the entire cross examination of PW.1, even there is no suggestion from the end of the Accused with regard to endorsement on Ex.P2/Cheque return memo.

16.4. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the endorsement “ funds insufficient ” made by Bank authorities on

Ex.P2/cheque return memo would attract Section.138 of NI Act. Accordingly this Point is answered in favour of Complainant and against Accused.

17. POINT No.(i) 11 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

Whether Ex.P1/Cheque was issued towards legally enforceable

debt?

17.1. PW.1 deposed that Accused borrowed Rs.2,50,000/-(Two lakh fifty

Thousand only) from him on 20.01.2019 for his family and business expenses by way of hand loan in the presence of PW2 and one M.Sukumar Babu, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. payable on demand either to PW.1 or his order on demand. It is the further evidence of

PW.1 that after several demands, the Accused issued an account payee cheque bearing No.085263 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 15.04.2019 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Machavarm, Vijayawada with the Accused account

No.630601542841 towards part payment of the above said borrowed amount from him and requested to present the said cheque on the same day itself representing that there are necessary funds in his account to honour the above said cheque; and that PW1 presented the above cheque for collection through his Banker i.e. ICICI Bank Limited, Benz Circle Branch, Vijayawada and the same was returned dishonoured on 16.04.2019 with the reason “Account Blocked”.

17.2. It is the further evidence of PW1 that immediately after receipt of information as to dishonour of cheque, he has communicated to the Accused through telephone, the Accused approached PW1 and taken back the above said dishonour cheque and paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- cash and issued four post dated cheques for the part payment i.e. cheque No.144521, dt.15.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.31,500/-(Pertaining to CC No.6462/22); 12 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

Cheque No.144522 dt.15.09.2019 for an amount of Rs.32,250/-(Pertaining to

CC No.6402/22 - Present case); Cheque No.144523, dt.15.10.2019 for an

amount of Rs.33,000/-(Pertaining to CC No.6404/22) and Cheque No.144524, dt.15.11.2019 for an amount of Rs.29,250/-(Pertaining to CC No.1449/23), all are drawn from Syndicate Bank, Machavaram, Vijayawada by representing that there are necessary funds in his account to honour the four cheques.

17.3. It is the further evidence of PW1 that he has presented the

Ex.P1/Cheque bearing No.144522 dt.15.09.2019 for an amount of Rs.32,250/- on 10.11.2019 through his banker i.e. ICICI Bank, Benz circle Branch,

Vijayawada and the same was dishonoured on 11.11.2019 for the reason of “Funds Insufficient” with a memo endorsement dt.11.11.2019 by the Accused banker i.e. Syndicate Bank, Machavaram Branch, Vijayawada and the said information was communicated to the Accused by way of Ex.P3/Legal notice which was issued to residence address as well as office address, but the same are returned as Unclaimed and intimation served under Ex.P5/

Unserved postal covers.

17.4. It is the contention of learned counsel for Complainant that the

Accused issued Ex.P1/cheque towards part payment of the debt under hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- borrowed by the Accused on 20.1.2019 from PW1 which is legally enforceable debt. It is the further contention of learned counsel for

Complainant that the Accused has been admitting his signature on

Ex.P1/Cheque and thus it can be presumed that Ex.P1/Cheque was issued 13 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 towards legally enforceable debt covered under the hand loan of

Rs.2,50,000/- dt.20.01.2019.

17.5. The learned counsel for Accused vehemently contended that PW1 used to conduct private chits, in which the Accused is one of the subscribers, he became prized subscriber of one of the chits, at the time of giving the prized chit amount PW1 obtained five blank signed cheques towards security for payment of remaining installments; and that he paid remaining installments, but he did not return the five cheques though the Accused requested him, but not returned the same under the guise that those cheques are not traced; and that by misusing five cheques PW1 fabricated

Ex.P1/Cheque and cheques in other criminal cases i.e. C.C. Nos.6462/2022, 6404/2022 and 1449/2023 and filed all four cases against him in order to harass him.

17.6. In this case on hand there is no dispute about the signature of

Accused on Ex.P1/Cheque. Further it is not in dispute that Ex.P1/Cheque belongs to Accused. In the cross examination PW1 categorically deposed that he never run the private chits. PW2 also categorically deposed that to his knowledge PW1 never run private chits and he never join one of the subscribers of the alleged chits. PW2 also categorically deposed that he along with one M.Sukumar Babu witnessed the transaction on 20.01.2019.

Though, the Accused cross examined PW1 and PW2 at length it is not the case of the Accused that the signature on Ex.P1/Cheque is not that of him.

14 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

Further from the cross examination of PW1 and PW2, it is evident that the

Accused has been admitting the signature on Ex.P1/Cheque.

17.7.When once the signature on the Negotiable Instrument is admitted, there arises a presumption U/Sec.118(a) and Section.139 of

Negotiable Instrument Act that the said instrument had been made (or) drawn for consideration. Under Section.139 of NI Act, the Court has to presume,

Unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of the Cheque received the same for discharge of, in whole or part of any debt or other liability. Thus, in compliance of Sec.138 of NI Act, the Court has to presume that Cheque had been issued towards discharge of debt or liability. However, this presumption is a rebuttable presumption. Though the burden to rebut the presumption on the Accused is not as high as that of presumption of burden of proof of prosecution, the burden of proving that a Cheque had not been issued for a debt or liability, is on the Accused by adducing positive evidence to

Probabilise the asserted fact.

17.8.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri

Mohan 1 Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the scope of presumption under 138 of NI Act and the relevant para is extracted here under:-

Para 14: “ In light of these extracts, we are in

agreement with the respondent-claimant that the

1(2010) 11 SCC 14 15 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act

does indeed include the existence of a legally

enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the

impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan

Bhat(supra) may not be correct………. As noted in

the citations, this is of course in the nature of a

rebuttable presumption and it is open to the Accused

to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally

enforceable debt or liability can be contested.

However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial

presumption which favours the Complainant .

Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse

onus clause that has been included in furtherance of

the legislative objective of improving the credibility

of negotiable instruments. ……... In such a scenario,

the test of proportionality should guide the

construction and interpretation of reverse onus

clauses and the Accused/defendant cannot be

expected to discharge an unduly high standard or

proof. In the absence of compelling justifications,

reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary

burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in

view, it is a settled position that when an Accused

has to rebut the presumption under section 139, the

standard of proof for doing so is that of

preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, if the

Accused is able to raise a probable defence which

creates doubts about the existence of a legally

enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail.

……...” 17.9.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh

Kumar 2discussed the Rangappa cases(supra) and held at para 37 as 22019 (4) SCC 197 16 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 follows:- “ A meaningful reading of the provisions of the

Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular,

sections 20,87 and 139 makes it amply clear that a person

who signs a Cheque and makes it over to the payee

remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the

presumption that the Cheque had been issued for

payment of a debt or in dicharge of a liability. ……….. If

the Cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of

Section 138 would be attracked”.

17.10.The Hon’ble Supreme Courtof India inthe case of M/s.

Kalamani Tex & Another Vs. P.Bala Subramanian 3 discussed the

Rangappa and Bir Singh Cases (Supra) and held at para No.14 that :-

Para.14:- “………..The statute mandates that once the

signature(s) of an Accused on the Cheque/Negotiable

Instruments are established, then these ‘reverse onus ’

clause become operative. In such a situation, the

obligation shifts upon the Accused to discharge the

presumption imposed upon him……………".

In view of the above statutory presumptions, above judicial precedents and in view of the rival contentions of both sides, I now proceed to examine,

“Whether the Accused could rebut the presumption U/sec.139 of NI

Act” ?

17.11.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High Court of

A.P. in catena of decisions held that in order to rebut the statutory 3(Crl.Appeal No.123/2021, dated 10.02.2021) 17 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 presumptions raised U/Sec.118 & U/Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the Accused must raise probable defence which must meet the standard of “Preponderance of Probability” and not mere possibility and a bare denial of passing of consideration, could not aid the case of Accused.

17.12.In order to rebut above statutory presumption, the Accused has

Banked upon the cross examination of PW.1 and PW2. The Accused has not adduced his evidence. In the cross examination PW.1 denied the suggestion that he has run private chits, the Accused is one of the members along with

PW2, the Accused participated in the said chit and became prized subscriber of one of the chits and also paid the remaining installments; and that at the time of giving the prized amount, PW1 obtained five blank cheques from the

Accused for security for repayment of remaining installments and he paid remaining chit installments to PW1, but did not return the five cheques though the Accused requested him to return the same under the guise that those cheques are not traced; and that by misusing the five cheques, he has fabricated Ex.P1/Cheque and cheques in other criminal cases i.e. C.C.

Nos.6462/2022, 6404/2022 and 1449/2023 filed against the Accused in order to harass him.

17.13.From the entire cross examination of PW1 and PW2 the Accused could not get any favourable answers about the alleged chit business of the

Complainant /PW1. If at all the contention of the Accused is true, the Accused would have taken steps like issuance of legal notice or lodging of complaint 18 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 against the Complainant and get back the signed blank cheques said to have been obtained by PW1 from the Accused in the course of alleged chit transaction; but the Accused did not take any such steps for the reasons best known to him.

17.14. When it is the specific contention of the Accused that PW1 has been running private chits and the Accused is one of the subscribers of chit, during running of said chit he became prized subscriber of one of the chits, at the time of giving prized amount the Complainant obtained five signed blank cheques towards security for payment of remaining installments; and that he paid remaining chit installments but PW1 did not return the five cheques though the Accused requested him to return the same under the guise that those cheques are not traced and that by misusing the same he has fabricated Ex.P1/Cheque and other cheques in C.C. Nos.6462/2022, 6404/2022 and 1449/2023, it is for the Accused to place convincing and cogent material before the Court like who are other subscribers of the chits the quantum of each chit, the quantum of each installment and the duration of chit and so also mode of the payment of each installment and the quantum of amount he got towards prized amount. But the cross examination of PW1 and

PW2 are bereft of all those details. Further the Accused has not placed any material before the Court on all those aspects. Further there is no plausible explanation from the side of the Accused why he kept silent without taking any steps against PW1 as per law to get back the alleged signed blank cheques.

19 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 17.15. The evidence of PW2 is to the extent of that he along with

M.Sukumar were present at the time of hand loan transaction for

Rs.2,50,000/- on 20.01.2019 between PW1 and the Accused. The Accused though cross examined PW2 could not elicit any favourable answers as to raise doubt about the presence of PW2 at the time of said transaction and to doubt his veracity. The entire cross examination of PW1 and PW2 is unshaken in respect of the hand loan transaction dt.20.01.2019. Further in the entire cross examination of PW2 it is not the case of the Accused that

PW2 did not witness the hand loan transaction on 20.01.2019 and he has not elicited anything from him to doubt his presence at the time of transaction under the hand loan and to impeach his creditworthiness. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Accused by cross examining PW1 and PW2 failed to place any cogent and convincing material to substantiate the case of the Accused and to meet the standard of “Preponderance of Probability”.

17.16.In view of the above discussion this Court is of the considered opinion that the contention of the Accused that Ex.P1/Cheque was given to

Complainant towards security purpose during the course of alleged chit transaction and it was misused and fabricated by the Complainant is not believable and trustworthy.

17.17.In view of all the above attending circumstances, this Court is of 20 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 the considered opinion that the Accused failed to rebut the presumption under

Section 139 of NI Act by placing cogent and convincing material to probabalize her defence.

17.18.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the Accused has issued Ex.P1/Cheque in favour of Complainant towards part payment of debt due under hand loan between PW1 and

Accused and it is legally enforceable debt. This Point is answered in favour of

Complainant and against the Accused.

18. POINT No.(v)

Whether the Accused is liable for conviction for the offence

U/sec.138 of NI Act?

18.1. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings on Point Nos.(i) to

(iv), this Court is of the considered opinion that the Complainant has proved his case and the Accused failed to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of

Complainant U/s.139 of N.I. Act, 1881, by Probabalizing the defence taken by him; and that the Complainant proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, the Accused is liable for Conviction.

19.IN THE RESULT, the Accused is “found guilty” for the offence

U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act,1881 and accordingly he is convicted

U/sec.255 (2) Cr.P.C.

20.Heard the Accused on quantum of sentence to be imposed against 21 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 him. The Accused pleaded that he is married and has two sons, who are aged about 23 Years and 17 Years respectively, the elder son has been pursuing final year B.Tech and the younger one has been studying second year

Intermediate, his wife has been running a small clothes shop at a Church; and that his presence is very much essential to look after his family. It is further submitted that if he is doing Shamiyana business and earning meager amount. He further submitted that he puts behind bars, his dependents will become orphans and prayed the Court to take lenient view, considering the profession and family situation of the Accused and prayed the Court to show mercy on him.

21.The learned counsel for Accused submitted that considering the petty business of the Accused and his wife and the age and studies of their both sons prayed the Court to show mercy on him and impose fine instead of sentence.

22. The offence proved against the Accused is U/sec.138 of NI Act, which is punishable with Imprisonment for a term which may extend to TWO(2)

YEARS or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of Cheque, or

with both. Hence, this Court is not inclined to take any lenient view in favour of the Accused.

23. The learned counsel for the Complainant has argued that this Court is having power to award compensation which is equivalent to twice the amount of Cheque U/sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C. On the other hand the learned counsel for 22 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 the Accused vehemently argued that this Court has no power to award compensation and power to impose fine upto Rs.10,000/ only, in view of

Sec.29 of Cr.P.C.

24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somnath Sarkar Vs.

Utpal Basu Mallick and another 4, wherein their lordships held that:

"Section 138 of N.I.Act does not contemplate grant of

compensation and it envisages imposition of fine not exceeding

twice the amount of dishonoured Cheque and it is from and out of

this fine amount, the Complainant be compensated under

Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C." .

25.Further, it is a settled legal position that a Special Enactment prevails over the General Law and the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a Special

Enactment.

26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Vijayan Vs. Baby 5, wherein their lordships held that:

“In regard to any prosecution for the offences punishable

U/sec.138 of NI Act, a I class Magistrate may impose a fine

exceeding Rs.5,000/- ( Now it is Rs.10,000/), the ceiling being

twice the amount of the Cheque” The Hon’ble Supreme Court

also observed that the object of 8.2014 (1) ALT (Crl) 145 SC

9.2012(1) ALD (Crl) 803 SC 26 OF 31 chapter XVII of the

Negotiable Instruments Act is both punitive as also

compensatory and restitutive. It provides a single forum and

single proceeding for enforcement of criminal liability by reason

of dishonour of Cheque and for enforcement of the Civil liability

42014 (1) ALT (Crl) 145 SC 52012(1) ALD (Crl) 803 SC 23 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

for realization of the Cheque amount thereby obviating the need

for the creditor to move two different fora for relief. Some

Magistrate went by the traditional view, that the criminal

proceedings were for imposing punishment and did not exercise

discretion to direct payment of compensation, causing

considerable difficulty to the Complainant , as invariably the

limitation for filing Civil cases would expire by the time of

criminal case was decided. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also

observed that unless there are special circumstances, in all

cases of conviction, the Court should uniformly exercise the

power of levy fine upto twice the Cheque amount (keeping in

view the Cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9 %

per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss), and direct

payment of such amount as compensation; The uniformity and

consistency in deciding similar cases by different Courts, not

only increase the credibility of the Cheque as a Negotiable

Instrument, but also the credibility of the Courts of the justice”.

27. The above judgment was also discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar case (supra) at paras No’s 20, 28 and 29, and also referred in M/s. Kalamani Tex Case (Supra).

28. In view of the above Judicial precedents, it is clear that this Court can impose fine upto twice the amount of dis- honoured Cheque and in that fine only, this Court has to award compensation to the Complainant under

Sec.357(3) Cr.P.C. This case is pending from the last Four (04) years. By considering the submissions made by the Accused, the mitigating circumstances and all the above facts into consideration, this Court is of the considered view that sentencing the Accused to imprisonment for a period of

ONE(1) YEAR and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-( Rupees Fifty Thousand only) 24 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026 would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ONE(1) YEAR and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-( Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in default, the Accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for THREE(03) MONTHS. Out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs. 48,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand only) shall be paid to the Complainant towards compensation under Sec.357(3) Cr.P.C., after appeal time is elapsed. The remaining amount of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees

Two Thousand only) shall be paid to the State to defray expenses incurred in the prosecution, after expiry of appeal time.

29. The period of detention already undergone by the Accused (NIL) shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The Accused was informed about his right to prefer appeal against the conviction and sentence of this Court.

30. The copy of Judgment is furnished to the Accused, at free of cost, as contemplated under Sub-Section (1) of Section.363 Cr.P.C.

Partly dictated and partly typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 21st day of April, 2026.

sd/- N.Radhika

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE –CUM –

MAHILA MAGISTRATE (JUVENILE COURT), VIJAYAWADA

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Complainant:For Accused :

25 of 26

APKR050068222022

CC No.6402/2022

II ADDL CJM, VIJAYAWADA. Dated 21.04.2026

PW1: G.Vidya Sagar Babu @ Vidya Sagar NIL

PW2: V.Vijay

Documents marked

For Complainant For Accused

S.No.Description Date

Ex.P1 Cheque 15.09.2019

Ex.P2Cheque returned memo11.11.2019 issued by Bank

Ex.P3Office copy of legal26.11.2019 - NIL - notice

Ex.P4Postal receipts Two(2) in27.11.2019 number

Ex.P5 Unserved cover Two (2)03.12.2019 in number

Material Objects

-Nil-

sd/- N.Radhika

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE –CUM –

MAHILA MAGISTRATE (JUVENILE COURT), VIJAYAWADA

26 of 26

APKR050039972021

CC No.3681/2021 Dated 28.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE –CUM –

MAHILA MAGISTRATE (JUVENILE COURT), VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT :- SMT. NETTEM RADHIKA

II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- cum-Mahila Magistrate (Juvenile Court), Vijayawada.

(Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026)

C.C.No.3681/2021

Between :

The State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Penamaluru PoliceStation, Vijayawada City. ... Complainant

AND 1Vuyyuru Hema Siva Kishore 2Vuyyuru Venkateswara Rao 3Vuyyuru Venkata Nancharamma 4Abdul Sana Begum … Accused

This Case came up for final hearing on 27.04.2026 before me in the presence of Miss. Y.Satyavani, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Ch.Anjaneya Prasad, Advocate for Accused and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1 of 10

APKR050039972021

CC No.3681/2021 Dated 28.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

1.This is a case filed by Sub Inspector of Police, Penamaluru

PoliceStation, Vijayawada City against the above noted Accused in crime

No.470/2021 for the offences punishable U/s. 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (Hereinafter refer to as IPC for brevity) and Section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Hereinafter refer to as DP Act for brevity) against the Accused.

2.THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IS AS FOLLOWS :-.

2.1. The marriage of LW1/Vuyyuru Anitha was performed with Accused

No.1 on 10.03.2016 as per Hindu customs at Sri Karlapudi Venkata Ramaiah

Function Hall, Tadigadapa. After the marriage, Accused No.1 set up family at

Hyderabad. At the time of marriage, her parents have given Rs.15,00,000/- towards dowry and Rs.50,000/- towards Adapaduchu Katnam and also given 15 tulas gold, 30 tulas silver and sent her to her in-laws house. In her family, they are two daughters and her parents thought that the Accused, who are their relatives would look after her well. As per the demand of Accused No.3, her parents have performed the marriage in a grand manner by incurring an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. After marriage. Accused No.1 looked after her well for a period of some days by doing job. Later, Accused No.1 addicted to vices and left his job. LW1/Vuyyuru Anitha is running the family by doing job.

Accused No.1 used to harass her physically and mentally by keeping her ATM card with him. Accused No.1 used to come late in the night by consuming 2 of 10

APKR050039972021

CC No.3681/2021 Dated 28.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

alcohol and he used to bring his friends to the house. When he went out of the house at night times, he kept the doors locked by keeping her in the house. When she questioned about it, he used to hit his head to the walls, throws the food and behaved differently by saying “you go to your parents house, lest he would commit suicide”. Even though she is doing Job he did not provide proper food to her. He used to play online games and used to pick up quarrel with her on daily. When she raised question about it, he used to throw the household articles here and there by threatening her that he would commit suicide. She was forced to wait with sleepless. Due to fear, she brought the issue to the notice of Accused No.2 and 3. On that they bore grudge against her and responded reluctantly as their son is male and he consumes alcohol since long time and they supported the activities of

Accused No.1. She also brought the issue to the notice of Accused No.4, who reluctantly replied and supported the Accused No.1. When her parents came to them and asked about it, Accused No.1 to 3 demanded to bring

Rs.5,00,000/- additional dowry and also demanded to register her parents property in their name, urgently. They also stated that if the property as registered in their name, they would look after her very well. Moreover, they demanded to bring one more Lakh towards adapadachu katnam. Accused

No.3 used to harass her mentally. Further, they all instigated to Accused No.1 over phone stating that Accused No.1 and LW1/Vuyyuru Anitha are not blessed with children. On that Accused No.1 used to harass her. Her parents 3 of 10

APKR050039972021

CC No.3681/2021 Dated 28.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

held panchayats for two times before the elders, at that time they agreed that they will not harass her, but they continued their harassment towards her and also beat her indiscriminately.

2.2.On 28.10.2018 night time, Accused No.1 came to the house by consuming alcohol, necked her out of the house and locked the house.

LW1/Vuyyuru Anitha sat in front of the house in the whole night and called her parents. On the next day, her parents came to the house and brought her to her parents' house. Later, they held a panchayat before the elders, in that panchayat they demanded Rs.5,00,000/- additional dowry and they do not want children to her. Accused No.1 also reluctantly stated that he will play online games and roam without doing any job and stated if she bears it, they would send her to their house. After a few days later, her parents held a panchayat, on which they reluctantly stated that Accused No.1 does not lead conjugal life with her and threatened them.

2.3. Based on the report of the LW1/Vuyyuru Anitha, Penamaluru Police registered a case in Cr.No.470/2021 U/Sec.498(A) r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act. LW6/B.Sailaja Kumari, Sub Inspector of Policeexamined and recorded the statement of LW1/Vuyyuru Anitha, visited the localities of the complainant and Accused, moved in the vicinity and made inquiries about the occurrence of offense, examined and recorded the statements of LW.2 to 5 4 of 10

APKR050039972021

CC No.3681/2021 Dated 28.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

i.e. Dulupudi Kalahasti, Aakunuru Koteswara Rao, Thanellamudi Srinivasa

Rao and Aakuru Subba Rao. She served notices U/s.41-A Cr.P.C to the

Accused No.1 to 4 with a request to appear before SHO, Penammaluru, they are also instructed to appear before the Investigation Officer without fail on the date and time by instructing that if they fail to attend without any reason, necessary action will be taken in accordance with the law. After receiving the notices, the Accused No.1 to 4 came to the Policestation and admitted to have committed their guilt and they also produced sufficient sureties and bail bonds with a request to release them on bail by promising that they would appear before the Court as and when their presence is required. Thereafter,

LW7/S.Srinivasu, Sub Inspector of Police took up further investigation into this case and verified the investigation done by the LW6/B.Sailaja Kumari, Sub

Inspector of Police and found that it is on correct lines. After completion of investigation, LW7/S.Srinivasu Sub Inspector of Policefiled charge sheet against them.

3.On receipt of the charge sheet, this Court took cognizance for the offence u/s. 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and issued summons to Accused No.1 to 4.

4.On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents are furnished to them as contemplated u/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Herein after referred as Cr.P.C for brevity).

5 of 10

APKR050039972021

CC No.3681/2021 Dated 28.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

5.The Accused No.1 to 4 were examined u/s.239 of Cr.P.C. They denied the Accusation, Charges for the offence u/s. 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act framed against Accused, read over and explained to the

Accused, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.1.When the matter is posted for trial, the learned counsel for Accused filed a memo stating A2 to A4 preferred Criminal Petition No.13260/2025

before Hon’ble High Court of A.P seeking quash of the case proceeding, by

order dt.22.12.2025 the Hon’ble High Court of A.P was pleased to dispense with presence of A2 to A4 before this Court unless their presence is specifically directed by this Court and filed photo copy of order dt.22.12.2025 and the said criminal petition is pending.

5.2. On 27.04.2026 the learned counsel for Accused filed memo stating that there is no stay in Criminal petition No.13260/2025 except dispense with the presence of A2 to A4 and prayed the Court to proceed with the case.

6. To prove their case, the prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and exhibited Ex.P1 and P2. The learned APP given up the evidence of LWs.3 to

LW.7 i.e. Aakunuru Koteswara Rao, Thanellamudi Srinivasa Rao, Aakuru

Subba Rao, B.Sailaja Kumari/Sub Inspector of Policeand S.Srinivasu/Sub

Inspector of Police, stating that PW1 and PW2 who are the defacto 6 of 10

APKR050039972021

CC No.3681/2021 Dated 28.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

complainant and father of defacto complainant did not support the case and turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

7.As there is no incriminating material available against the Accused in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, examination of Accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is that:

Whether the prosecution has proved and established the guilt of

Accused for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and

Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against Accused No.1 to 4 beyond

reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:

10.1. In order to establish the guilt of the Accused for the above said offence, the prosecution has to establish that Accused No.1 to 4 subjected

PW1 to cruelty as defined under explanation (a) & (b) of Section 498-A of IPC, taken dowry from her parents at the time of Marriage and demanded

additional dowry after the Marriage.

10.2. PW1, who is the defacto complainant deposed that her marriage with

Accused No.1 was performed on 10.03.2016 at a function hall in Tadigadapa; 7 of 10

APKR050039972021

CC No.3681/2021 Dated 28.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

after marriage, she and Accused lived happily for few days only and lived together upto 2018, thereafter some petty disputes arouse between them, on that she went to her parents house, there elders obtained her signatures on some written papers, but she does not know its contents. PW1 admitted the signature on the report dt.15.06.2021 marked under Ex.P1 and pleaded ignorance as to the contents. PW1 further deposed that she has compromised the case with the Accused; and the Accused No.1 filed divorce petition before the Hon’ble Addl. Family Court, Vijayawada vide FCOP

No.1231/2021, she has contested the same and divorce were granted by order dt.04.10.2024 and she denied her 161 Cr.P.C statement marked under

Ex.P2. PW2, who is the father of PW1 deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW1 and PW2 denied his 161 Cr.P.C statement marked under Ex.P3.

10.3. According to the case of prosecution the Criminal Law was set into motion against the Accused basing on the report given by PW1 to the police.

But this witness being the defacto complainant and PW2, who is father of

PW1 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. The learned

Asst.Public Prosecutor though cross examined PW1 and PW2, but nothing could be elicited in favour of the Prosecution.

10.4. PW1 and PW2, who are the defacto complainant and father of PW1 in this case did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Except the evidence of PW1 and PW 2 there is no other evidence on record to 8 of 10

APKR050039972021

CC No.3681/2021 Dated 28.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 and

PW2 is not sufficient to substantiate the accusation against Accused that they subjected PW1 to cruelty as defined under explanation (a) & (b) of Section 498-A of IPC, taken dowry from her parents at the time of Marriage and demanded additional dowry after the Marriage. As there is no incriminating evidence against Accused for the accusation levelled against them, this Court is of the considered view that, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the Accused, beyond reasonable doubt, hence, the Accused No.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

11.IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found “not guilty” for the offence u/s. 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P Act, 1961.

Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused No.1 to 4 shall remain in-force for a period of Six(6) months as contemplated Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28th day of April, 2026.

sd/- N.Radhika

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

SL.No. For Complainant : For Defence :

9 of 10

APKR050039972021

CC No.3681/2021 Dated 28.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

PW1 Vuyyuru Anitha - NONE -

PW2D.Kalahasti

Documents marked

Sl.No. For Complainant : For Defence:

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on the Report dt.15.06.2021 NIL

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Material Objects

-Nil-

sd/- N.Radhika

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

10 of 10

APKR050029222021

CC No.2665/2021 Dated 22.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE –CUM –

MAHILA MAGISTRATE (JUVENILE COURT), VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT :- SMT. NETTEM RADHIKA

II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- cum-Mahila Magistrate (Juvenile Court), Vijayawada.

(Wednesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2026)

C.C.No.2665/2021

Between :

The State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Suryaraopet Police Station,

Vijayawada City. ... Complainant

AND 1Devanaboyina Raja Sekhar 2Devanaboyina Sridevi 3Devanaboyina Sivaji 4Devanaboyina Ravi Kiran … Accused

This Case came up for final hearing on 21.04.2026 before me in the presence of Miss. Y.Satyavani, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri M.Arif, Advocate for Accused present in person and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1 of 8

APKR050029222021

CC No.2665/2021 Dated 22.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

1.This is a case filed by Sub Inspector of Police, Suryaraopet Police

Station, Vijayawada City against the above noted Accused in crime

No.322/2020 for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter refer to as IPC for brevity) against the Accused.

2.THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IS AS FOLLOWS :- 2.1. In the year 2015 when LW1/Devanaboyina Ramya Krishna was working at an Advocate office in Vijayawada as a computer operator, the

Accused No.1 developed acquaintance with her and they loved each other.

But their elders didn't accept to perform the marriage. Later for the job purpose and for attending the interview at the Software company in

Hyderabad in the year 2017 the Accused No.1 taken LW1/Devanaboyina

Ramya Krishna to Hyderabad where she got selected in interview and doing her job by staying at the hostel. At that time the Accused No.1 was working in a Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) as a HR executive. On 01.07.2018 after the acceptance of the elders LW1/Devanaboyina Ramya Krishna and

Accused No.1 got married. Since then the Accused No.1 used to harass her both physically and mentally and also tortured her with his pin pointed words by saying she didn't bring dowry amount, unnecessary he married her, if he married another woman he would have got huge dowry amount and tried to beat her, started abusing by using as "Bajaru munda". When

LW1/Devanaboyina Ramya Krishna asked to take her to the Doctor, the 2 of 8

APKR050029222021

CC No.2665/2021 Dated 22.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

Accused No.1 told that there is something wrong in her. Whenever questioned about the expenditure amount, Accused No.1 tried to bear her by using abusive words.

2.2. The Accused No.1 told LW1/Devanaboyina Ramya Krishna to do her job in foreign country, and also told to get loan. After the engagement of her sister, Accused No.1 squabbled with her several times regarding the amount.

Accused No.1 also tortured her by saying he spent huge amount for her.

Later, LW1/Devanaboyina Ramya Krishna somehow convinced and asked

Accused No.1 to contact consultancy for applying the Visa for which Accused

No.1 told that already his friend is there and already enquired, and it costs

Rs.3,00,000/-. Accused No.1 suspected her fidelity by alleging that she has developed illegal affair with someone at her office and harassed her, beat her indiscriminately and also stated that they are not made for each other, and demanded to give divorce and also threatened her. Further they didn't get

Visa and since then Accused No.1 harassed her by saying different kinds of allegations and also maintaining distance by staying at Vijayawada.

2.3. LW1/Devanaboyina Ramya Krishna and her mother questioned, the

Accused No.2 and 3 who are her father in law and mother in law together told them to adjust with Accused No.1, presently he is under depression for not getting Visa. When LW1/Devanaboyina Ramya Krishna was pregnant,

Accused No.1 didn't bring her in time and when together attended for the 3 of 8

APKR050029222021

CC No.2665/2021 Dated 22.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

scanning, the Doctor examined and declared that LW1/Devanaboyina Ramya

Krishna lost her pregnancy. Since then by taking said reason started harassing by saying there is no chance for getting children and there is no use of her. Whenever LW1/Devanaboyina Ramya Krishna was attending job,

Accused No.1 used to suspect her, threatened her to give divorce. Then due to fear she told him she is ready to give divorce and asked to apply first. Due to fear she has also informed the Police over the phone. Then they were called to the Police station and counseled them. Later they reached to

Vijayawada and since then the Accused No.1 harassed her over the phone and also used to send the messages. The Accused No.2 to 4 together instigated Accused No.1 and on hearing their words the Accused No.1 harassed LW1/Devanaboyina Ramya Krishna both physically and mentally and also beaten her and they all together tortured her and, after immense pain having no alter go, LW1/Devanaboyina Ramya Krishna lodged complaint.

2.4. Basing on the report of LW1/Devanaboyina Ramya Krishna,

Suryaraopet Police registered FIR as case in Crime No.322/2020 for the offences punishable u/s. 498-A of IPC. LW.5/M.Prasanthi, Woman Sub

Inspector of police inspected the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of LW.1 to 4 i.e. Devanaboyina Ramya Krishna, Tadiparthi

Venkataratnam, Akurathi Sridhar and P.Venkatesh U/s.161 Cr.P.C, collected the marriage photos and wedding card for the purpose of investigation. On 29.11.2020 LW.5/M.Prasanthi, Woman Sub Inspector of police served Notice 4 of 8

APKR050029222021

CC No.2665/2021 Dated 22.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

U/s.41-A Cr.P.C to the Accused, explained the reasons about their guilt in this case and to comply the instructions and the Accused have complied the instructions and produced sufficient sureties and they were enlarged on station bail and after completion of investigation, LW5/M.Prasanthi/Women

Sub-Inspector of Police-6350 filed charge sheet against them.

3.On receipt of the charge sheet, this Court took cognizance for the offence u/s. 498-A r/w 34 IPC and issued summons to Accused No.1 to 4.

4.On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents are furnished to them as contemplated u/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Herein after referred as Cr.P.C for brevity).

5.The Accused No.1 to 4 were examined u/s.239 of Cr.P.C. They denied the Accusation, Charges for the offence u/s. 498-A of IPC framed against

Accused, read over and explained to the Accused, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove their case, the prosecution examined PW1 and exhibited

Ex.P1 and P2. The learned APP given up the evidence of LWs.2 to LW.5 i.e.

Tadiparthi Venkataratnam, Akurathi Sridhar, Polisetti Venkatesh and

M.Prasanthi/Woman Sub Inspector of Police, stating that PW1 who is the defacto complainant did not support the case and turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

5 of 8

APKR050029222021

CC No.2665/2021 Dated 22.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

7.As there is no incriminating material available against the Accused in the testimony of PW1, examination of Accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is that:

Whether the prosecution has proved and established the guilt of

Accused for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A of IPC against

Accused beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:

10.1. In order to establish the guilt of the Accused for the above said offence, the prosecution has to establish that Accused No.1 to 4 subjected

PW1 to cruelty as defined under explanation (a) & (b) of Section 498-A of IPC.

10.2. PW1, who is the defacto complainant deposed that her marriage with

Accused No.1 was performed on 01.07.2018 at Hotel Seven Days,

Vijayawada; after marriage, she and Accused No.1 lived happily for 1 ½ year , they have no children, thereafter some petty disputes arouse between them, on that she went to her parents house, there elders obtained her signatures on some typed papers, but she does not know its contents. PW1 admitted the signature on the report dt.02.09.2020 marked under Ex.P1 and pleaded ignorance as to the contents. PW1 further deposed that she has 6 of 8

APKR050029222021

CC No.2665/2021 Dated 22.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

compromised the case with the Accused; she along with Accused No.1 filed mutual divorce petition before the Hon’ble Principal Family Court, Vijayawada vide FCOP No.286/2026 and divorce were granted by order dt.12.04.2026.

10.3. According to the case of prosecution the Criminal Law was set into motion against the Accused basing on the report given by PW1 to the police.

But this witness being the defacto complainant did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. The learned Asst.Public Prosecutor though cross examined PW1, but nothing could be elicited in favour of the

Prosecution and she denied the contents of the statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C marked under Ex.P2.

10.4. PW1, who is the defacto complainant in this case did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Except the evidence of PW1 there is no other evidence on record to support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is not sufficient to substantiate the accusation against

Accused No.1 to 4, that they subjected PW1 to cruelty as defined under explanation (a) & (b) of Section 498-A of IPC. As there is no incriminating evidence against Accused for the accusation levelled against them, this Court is of the considered view that, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the Accused, beyond reasonable doubt, hence, the Accused No.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

11.IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found “not guilty” for 7 of 8

APKR050029222021

CC No.2665/2021 Dated 22.04.2026

II Addl.CJM/VIJAYAWADA.

the offence u/s. 498-A of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused No.1 to 4 shall remain in-force for a period of Six(6) months as contemplated Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of April, 2026.

sd/- N.Radhika

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

SL.No. For Complainant : For Defence :

PW1 Devanaboina Ramya Krishna NONE

Documents marked

Sl.No. For Complainant : For Defence:

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on the Report dt.02.09.2020 NIL

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Material Objects -Nil-

sd/- N.Radhika

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

8 of 8

APKR050040672024

II ACJM, VIJAYAWADA.

CC No.3564/2024 Dated 12.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE –CUM –

MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT :- SMT. NETTEM RADHIKA

II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.3564/2024

Between :

The State: Rep by Sub Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Vijayawada … Complainant.

AND 1Varikuppala Srinivasa Rao 2Varikuppala Yasodha @ Sujatha

3Varikuppala Subba Rao ... Accused

* * *

This Case came up for final hearing on 06.05.2026 before me in the presence of Miss. Y.Satyavani, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Accused are present as in persons, and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

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

1. This is a Case filed by Sub Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, 1 of 7

APKR050040672024

II ACJM, VIJAYAWADA.

CC No.3564/2024 Dated 12.05.2026

Vijayawada city against the above noted Accused in Cr.No.319/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 85 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Herein after refer to as BNS for brevity) and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act,1961 (Herein after refer to as DP Act for brevity).

2. THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IS AS FOLLOWS:- 2.1. LW1/Varikuppala Kavitha married Accused No.1 in the presence of their elders three (3) years ago. At that time of wedding, her parents gave an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- cash and gold ring to Accused No.1 on demand of dowry by Accused No.1. Accused No.1 works as driver. After her marriage, they stayed at Thummididuru, Nandigama at her in laws house along with

Accused No.1 and her in-laws. Accused No.1 looked after her well in the beginning but later Accused No.1 started harassing her physically and mentally due to influence of Accused No.2 and 3. Accused No.1 to 3 used to abuse LW1/Varikuppala Kavitha in filthy language demanding additional dowry from her parents. Accused No.1 comes to house in drunken state and harass LW1/Varikuppala Kavitha mentally and physically by demanding

additional dowry. Accused No.1 suspects her chastity and did not allow her to

speak with anybody. So she came out from their house and now residing at her maternal house. As she could not tolerate the torture of Accused No.1 to 3 for additional dowry. She approached the police and lodged a report against

Accused No.1 of 3.

2 of 7

APKR050040672024

II ACJM, VIJAYAWADA.

CC No.3564/2024 Dated 12.05.2026

2.2. Basing on the report of LW.1/Varikuppala Kavitha, II Town Police registered FIR as case in crime No.319/2024 for the offence U/s.85 BNS and

Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. LW.6/Rajanarendra Gangu, Sub Inspector of

Police examined and recorded the statements of LW1 to 3 i.e. Varikuppala

Kavitha, Gunja Kamala and Gunja Krishna U/s.180 BNSS and he proceeded to LW1/Varikuppala Kavitha maternal house area and secured the presence of the eye witness as LW.4/Villa Raju and LW5/Sivarathri Durga, examined and recorded their statements u/s 180 BNSS. On 17-07-2024

LW.6/Rajanarendra Gangu issued notice u/s 35 BNSS to the Accused. The

Accused complied with the terms of the notice and directed them to submit their explanation and obtained their self attested ID proofs. After completion of investigation, LW.6/Rajanarendra Gangu, Sub Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against Accused.

3.On receipt of the charge sheet, this Court took Cognizance for the offence Under Section 85 BNS and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 against

Accused.

4.On appearance of Accused No.1 to 3, case copies are furnished to them as contemplated U/s.230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(Herein after refer as BNSS for brevity).

5.Accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/s.262 of BNSS. Charges for the offence U/s.85 BNS and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 are framed, read- 3 of 7

APKR050040672024

II ACJM, VIJAYAWADA.

CC No.3564/2024 Dated 12.05.2026

over and explained to them in Telugu language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.To prove their case, the prosecution examined PW.1 and exhibited

Ex.P1 and P2. The learned APP given up the evidence of LWs.2 to LW6 i.e.

Gunja Kamala, Gunja Krishna, Villa Raju,Sivarathri Durga and Rajanarendra

Gangu, Sub Inspector of Police stating that PW.1, who is defacto complainant compromised and turned hostile.

7.As there is no incriminating material against Accused in the testimony of

PW.1, examination u/s.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for consideration is that:

Whether the prosecution has proved and established the guilt of

Accused for the offence punishable U/s. 85 BNS and Section 3 & 4

of D.P. Act, 1961 beyond reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:

10.1.In order to convict the Accused for the offence U/s.85 BNS and

Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961, the prosecution has to establish that the

Accused subjected PW1 to cruelty as defined Under Explanation (a) and (b) of

Section 86 of BNS and taken dowry from her parents by abetting them and 4 of 7

APKR050040672024

II ACJM, VIJAYAWADA.

CC No.3564/2024 Dated 12.05.2026

demanded additional dowry.

10.2. PW1, who is the defacto complainant deposed that her marriage was performed with Accused No.1 on 13.02.2021 at a function hall in

Vijayawada, after marriage, they lived happily for one year, they have no children, thereafter some petty disputes arouse between herself and Accused, on that she went to her parents house; there elders obtained her signatures on some written papers, but she does not know the contents. PW1 admitted her signature on the report dated 12.07.2024 marked under Ex.P1. PW.1 further deposed that she compromised the case with the Accused, Accused

No.1 and she filed mutual divorce petition before the Hon’ble Addl. Family

Court, Vijayawada vide FCOP No.1607/2025 and the same is pending and she denied her 180 BNSS statement under Ex.P2. This witness being the defacto complainant did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.

The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor cross examined PW.1, but nothing could be elicited in favour of the Prosecution.

10.3.PW1, who is the defacto complainant in this case did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Except the evidence of PW.1 there is no other evidence on record to support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is not sufficient to substantiate the accusation against

Accused that the Accused subjected PW1 to cruelty as defined Under

Explanation (a) and (b) of Section 86 of BNS and taken dowry from her parents by abetting them and demanded additional dowry. As there is no 5 of 7

APKR050040672024

II ACJM, VIJAYAWADA.

CC No.3564/2024 Dated 12.05.2026

incriminating evidence against Accused for the accusation levelled against them, this Court is of the considered view that, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the Accused, beyond reasonable doubt, hence, the

Accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

11.IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found “not guilty” for the offence u/s.85 BNS and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961. Accordingly they are acquitted under Section 271 (1) of BNSS, 2023. The bail bonds of Accused

No.1 to 3 shall remain in-force for a period of Six(6) months as contemplated

U/Sec.481 (1) of BNSS.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

sd/- N.Radhika

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

SL.No.For Complainant : For Defence :

PW1 V.Kavitha -- None --

Documents marked

SL.NoFor Complainant : For Defence : . Ex.P1 Signature of PW1 on the report dt.12.07.2024 6 of 7

APKR050040672024

II ACJM, VIJAYAWADA.

CC No.3564/2024 Dated 12.05.2026

- NIL -

Ex.P2 180 BNSS Statement of PW1

Material Objects - Nil -

sd/- N.Radhika

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

–CUM–MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

7 of 7