1
IN THE COURT OF I SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM.
PRESENT: SRI A.RAMACHANDRA RAO, I Special Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
FRIDAY, THIS THE 8th DAY OF MAY, 2026.
C.C.No.43/2011 (Old C.C.No.833/2008 & 1490/2008)
Between:
M/s Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., represented by its
Jr. Executive Accounts, Duddupudi Chandra Sekhar Rao
S/o Satyanarayana, 38 years, Eenadu Compound,
Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.
Vanamina Venkata Ramana S/o Suryanarayana,
Aged 49 years, Eenadu Compound, Seethammadhara,
Visakhapatnam. (Amended as per the orders in
Crl.M.P.No.2502/2012 dated 21-06-2012)
Yarla Mukunda Rao S/o Late Y.Lakshmi Narayana,
Aged 54 years, D.No.12-34, Sramsakthi Nagar,
Chinnamushidiwada, Visakhapatham-530 051 (Authorized Person name is amended as per the orders in
Crl.M.P.No.5150/2025 dated 21-08-2025).
...Complainant.
2
And:
1) M/s KEERTIKAR, The Advertisers,
Rep.by its sole Proprietrix,
Smt. Parvataneni Padmaja W/o Shyam Prasad,
Aged 35 years, G-4, Classic Complex,
Prakasaraopeta, Dabagardens,
Visakhapatnam-530 020.
2)Smt. Parvataneni Padmaja W/o Shyam Prasad,
Aged 35 years,G-4, Classic Complex, Prakasaraopeta,
Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam-530 020.
....Accused.
This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.V.Rama murthy, Sri K.Narasimha Murthy, and Sri B.V.Ravi Kumar, Advocates for the Complainant and of Sri D.Suresh Kumar, Advocate, for the accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
The Complainant filed this complaint against the Accused for the offence Under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act alleging as follows:-
2. The 1st Accused (herein after referred to as A1) is a Private
Advertisement Agency and the 2nd accused (herein after referred to as
A2) is proprietrix of A1. A2 is responsible for the day to day transactions of A1. A1 dealt business transactions with the Complainant by publishing publications of A1 for which the accused availed credit facility and there 3 is an outstanding balance amount of Rs.27,72,252/- (Rupees twenty seven lakhs, seventy two thousand, two hundred and fifty two only).
Number of times, the Complainant demanded the Accused for payment of the outstanding bills. But the accused postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Atlast A2, being proprietrix of A1, issued Ex.P5
Cheque bearing No.250915 dated 19-02-2008 for a sum of Rs.4,07,182/- (Rupees four lakhs, seven thousand, one hundred and eighty two only),
Ex.P4 Cheque bearing No.250916 dated 22-02-2008 for a sum of
Rs.4,82,426/- (Rupees four lakhs, eighty two thousand, four hundred and twenty six only), and Ex.P3 Cheque bearing Nos. 250917 dated 05-03- 2008 for a sum of Rs.2,15,908/- (Rupees two lakhs, fifteen thousand, nine hundred and eight only), drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited,
Visakhapatnam, in favour of the Complainant to clear the said outstanding liability. When the Complainant presented the said cheques for collection in Karnataka Bank Limited, Main Branch, Visakhapatnam, they were returned with an endorsement 'Funds Insufficient' vide Exs.P8,
P7 and P6 Cheque Return Memos respectively,. Then the Complainant got issued a statutory legal notice dated 22-05-2008 under the original of Ex.P9 on 28-05-2008 to A1 & A2 demanding to pay the amounts covered by Exs.P3 to P5 Cheques i.e., Rs.11,05,560/- (Rupees eleven lakhs, five thousand, and five hundred and sixty ony) within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice was served on
A1 on 29-05-2008 vide Ex.P10 Postal Acknowledgment. But the notice 4 sent to A2 was returned unserved with an endorsement 'Intimation served' on 31-05-2008 vide Ex.P11 unserved Returned Registered Post
Cover. A1 got issued Ex.P12 Reply Notice dated 13-06-2008 with false allegations. Thus both A1 & A2 have committed the offence punishable
Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence the
Complaint.
3.Originally this Complaint was filed in the Court of Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and it was taken cognizance of the offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused after taking sworn affidavit of the Complainant and numbered as C.C.No.833/2008 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Visakhapatnam. When the matter was coming up for appearance of the accused, it was transferred to the Court of IV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhpatnam and numbered as
C.C.NO.1490/2008 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Visakhapatnam. On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of
documents were furnished to them Under Section 207 Cr.P.C., on 07-1- 2011. When examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offence,
A1 and A2 pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed to be tried.
When the matter was coming up for trial, it was transferred to this Court and numbered as C.C.No.43/2011 on the file of this Court. During the course of trial, Vanamina Venkata Ramana, Office Assistant (Accounts
Incharge) of the Complainant himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P14. Exs.D1 to D4 were marked in the cross-examination of 5
P.W.1 on behalf of the accused.
4. After closure of the evidence on behalf of the Complainant, when both the accused were examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of PW.1, they denied the same and reported defence witnesses. When the matter was coming up for defence evidence, the accused filed a petition to send
Exs.P3 to P5 cheques with the signatures taken in open court along with the specimen signatures available in Bank for the account bearing
No.10042 of Karnataka Bank Limited, Jagadamba Branch, Visakhapatam, for comparison of the signatures on Exs.P3 to P5 cheques vide
Crl.M.P.No.2791/2016, a petition Under Section 315 of Cr.P.C., praying
the Court to permit A2 to examine herself as a defence witness vide
Cr.M.P.No. 2792/2016, and a petition Under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., praying the Court to summon the Branch Manager, Karnataka Bank Limited,
Jagadamba Junction Branch, Visakhapatnam to produce the entire record including the specimen signatures of the account holder relating to the Bank Account bearing No.10042 of M/s Keerthikar Advertisers vide Cr.M.P.No.3523/2019 and they were dismissed on 15-03-2017, 15-03- 2017 and 26-02-2020 respectively by my learned predecessor. The petitioner/A2 preferred Revision against the orders in
Cr.M.P.Nos.2791/2016 and 2792/2016 dated 15-03-2017 vide
Crl.R.P.Nos.71/2017 and 70/2017 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and the said Revision petitions were
allowed on 22-10-2018 with a direction to permit A2 to examine herself 6 as a defence witness and to send Exs.P3 to P5 cheques, admitted signatures of A2 available on record and the specimen signatures to be taken in open court after giving time to A2 to deposit the necessary fee of expert as fixed by the trial court. Accordingly, on 24-06-2029 this court sent Exs.P3 to P5 cheques together with the admitted signatures of A2 which were taken in open court for purpose of comparision of the signatures on Exs.P3 to P5 cheques with the admitted signatures of A2.
The Director, A.P.F.S.L,, Mangalagiri vide letter in APFSL/Doc/Genl/ 2019/245 dated 02-07-2019 returned the same stating that the standards received are insufficient to form an opinion with a request to retransmit along with some more admitted English signatures of A2 around the period 2008 for the purpose of comparison. But A2 has not taken any steps to comply with the said remarks of the Director,
A.P.R.F.S,L, Mangalagiri. Later A2 filed Petitions praying the court to reopen her evidence and to summon the police officials in respect of FIR in Crime No.477/2009 dated 16-11-2009 registered for the offence Under
Section 465 of IPC against G.Adinarayana Murthy on the report given by
A2 vide Cr.M.P.Nos.834/2022 & 835/2022 and they were also dismissed on 5-12-2022 by my learned predecessor. Later A2 filed two petitions
Under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., praying the court to reopen the matter so as to enable her to examine herself as a defence witness and to permit her to examine herself as defence witnesses, and a petition Under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., to summon the witnesses i.e., the Station House Officer of II
Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam and Joint Sub-Registrar, Guntur, vide 7
Cr.M.P.Nos.1082/2023, 1082/2023 and 8570/2024 respectively and in view of the orders of the Hon'ble Appellate Court in the above Criminal
Revision Petitions preferred by the accused, they were allowed on 28-12- 2023 and 07-04-2025 respectively. On behalf of the accused, A2 herself examined as D.W.1 and got examined D.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.D5 to
D10.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the
Complainant and the learned counsel for the accused.
6.Now the point for determination is … “Whether the Complainant has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”
P O I N T:7.
(i)In order to prove the guilty of the accused of the of- fence Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the Complainant has to prove that there was a legally enforceable debt and the cheque is- sued by the accused towards discharge of the said legally enforceable debt was presented for collection within the period of its validity and the same was dishonoured by the bank authorities for one of the reasons which attract the offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instru- ments Act and then he issued a legal notice Under Section 138 of Nego- tiable Instruments Act within the statutory period and the accused re- ceived the said notice, but failed to make any payment covered by the 8 dishonoured cheque within the stipulated time as mentioned in Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the complaint was filed within the period of limitation in the Court having jurisdiction. If all the above ingredients are proved by the Complainant or in other words, if all the above points are answered positively, the presumption Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play and then the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the said presumption by preponderance of probability. Now, it has to be seen whether the Complainant proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
(ii) To prove that there was a legally enforceable liability existing between the Complainant and A1 represented by A2, as stated above, the Complainant got examined its official as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 and P14. P.W.1 stated in his evidence that A1 had dealt business transac- tions with the Complainant by publishing publications of A1 for which the accused availed credit facility and there was an outstanding balance amount of Rs.27,72,252/- (Rupees twenty seven lakhs, seventy two thou- sand, two hundred and fifty two only). It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that number of times, the Complainant demanded the Accused for payment of the outstanding bills, but the accused postponed the same on one pretext or the other and atlast A2, being proprietrix of A1, issued Ex.P5
Cheque dated 19-02-2008 for a sum of Rs.4,07,182/- (Rupees four lakhs, seven thousand, one hundred and eighty two only), Ex.P4 Cheque dated 22-02-2008 for a sum of Rs.4,82,426/- (Rupees four lakhs, eighty two thousand, four hundred and twenty six only), and Ex.P3 Cheque dated 9 05-03-2008 for a sum of Rs.2,15,908/- (Rupees two lakhs, fifteen thou- sand, nine hundred and eight only), drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited,
Visakhapatnam, in favour of the Complainant to clear the said outstand- ing liability and when the Complainant presented the said cheques for collection in Karnataka Bank Limited, Main Branch, Visakhapatnam, they were returned with an endorsement 'Funds Insufficient' vide Exs.P8, P7 and P6 Cheque Return Memos respectively,.
(iii)Admittedly A1 represented by A2 gave Ex.P12 Reply Notice
dated 13-06-2008 to Ex.P9 statutory legal notice dated 28-05-2008 got
issued by the Complainant and the same was marked as Ex.D3 on behalf of the accused. As seen from the said reply notice, it is the version of the accused that one Gandiboina Adinarayana Murthy is a whole and sole in- charge of the Advertisements Agency i.e., A1 Firm since 14-11-2007 un- der Ex.D5 deed of Transfer of Ownership and Activities/Duties/Responsi- bilities executed by A1 represented by A2 in his favour and the same was informed by the said G.Adinarayana Murthy to the Complainant under
Registered letter dated 10-05-2008 by sending copy of the letter to A1 represented by A2 which was received by A2 on 11-05-2008 and that A2 came to know that the said G.Adinarayana Murthy malpracticed pur- posefully with the backing support and helping of one Subbarao and
Srikanth who are the employees of the Complainant Company and knowing fully well that Exs. P3 to P5 cheques were issued by the said
G.Adinarayana Murthy by forging the signatures of A2, the said cheques were received for allowing him and encouraging him to continue busi- 10 ness with the Complainant for the purpose of earning more margins be- yond the norms and ethics of the Complainant establishment/concern. It is also the version of the accused that the fact that A1 Firm availed the credit facility from the Complainant Company which shows the outstnad- ing balance for a sum of Rs.27,72,252/- (Rupees twenty seven lakhs, sev- enty two thousand, two hundred and fifty two only) is absolutely false.
(iv)It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that in the year 2010 he joined in Visakhapatnam as an Account Incharge in the Com- plainant company and by the time of filng of the complaint, he was not present in Vizag and one civil case is pending in respect of this dispute. It is also elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that he is giving evi- dence as per the record only and the Complaint does not contain the de- tails of business transactions with reference to the cheques and he has not filed any record relating to business between the complainant and the accused except the cheques. It is also elicited in the cross-examina- tion of P.W.1 that the request for credit facility as per rules should be in writing. When it was suggested to P.W.1 in his cross-examination that A1 has nothing to do with the business, he denied the same. Later in the further chief examination of P.W.1 as per the orders in Crl.
M.P.No.1259/2013 dated 12-07-2013, Ex.P13 statement of Account of A1 maintained in the Complainant Company and Ex.P14 bunch of 242 bills together with zerox copies of Release orders and xerox copies of paper publications enclosed to each bill were marked. Ex.P14 bunch of bills was marked subject to objection with regard to relevancy and proof. In the 11 cross-examination of P.W.1, it is elicited that Ex.P13 does not bear any auditors seal or signature to say that the same was submitted to Income
Tax Department and Sales Tax Department and that they have not filed any CD of Ex.P13 statement of account of A1. Certain omissions were elicited in some of the bills of Ex.P14 bunch of bills in the cross-examina- tion of P.W.1.
(v)The learned counsel for A1 and A2 contended that along with the complainant, no documents were filed to prove the amount said to have been due from A1 to the Complainant and after cross-examination of P.W.1 on that aspect, Ex.P13 statement of account of A1 and Ex.P14 bunch of bills were marked in the further chief examination of P.W.1 and therefore they cannot be looked into as they were created for the pur- pose of this case. He also contended that the ownership of A1 Firm along with its activities, duties and responsibilities was transferred to one
G.Adinarayana Murthy, who worked in A1 firm, under Ex.D5 Deed of
Transfer of ownership and Activities/Duties/Responsibilities and the said
G.Adinarayana Murthy issued Exs.P3 to P5 cheques to the Complainant by forging the signatures of A2 and on receipt of Ex.P9 statutory legal notice, A2 came to know about the same and lodged a report against
G.Adinarayana Murthy in II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam and it was registered as Ex.D4 FIR Under Section 465 of IPC and later it was re- ferred as Civil in nature without properly investigating into the matter and also without giving any notice to A2 vide Ex.P6 documents.
12
(vi)Coming to the evidence adduced on behalf of Accused, A2 herself examined as D.W.1 and her husband was examined as D.W.2.
D.W1 stated in her evidence that the Complainant did business with A1 firm and G.Adinarayana Murthy looked after the business affairs of A1 firm as per Ex.D5 unregistered Deed of Transfer of ownership and Activi- ties/Duties/Responsibilities dated 14-11-2007 entered into between her and the said Adinarayanamurthy. It is also the evidence of D.W.1 that since the date of establishment of A1 Firm, the said Adinarayanamurthy has been looking after the affairs of A1 Firm and he joined in A1 firm as a boy and as per Ex.D5 deed, the said Adinarayanamurthy agreed to pay
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand per month only) as Royalty to her for her livelihood and family survival. It is also the evidence of D.W.1 that her husband established A1 Firm in her name and she never looked after the business affairs of A1 Firm and her husband did net work business and the said Adinarayanamurthy looked after the affairs of A1 Firm and either herself or her husband never looked after the business affairs of
A1 firm, that initially the said Adinarayana Murthy obtained her signa- tures on the documents and subsequently he stopped obtaining her sig- natures and he also did not pay the said Royalty as per Ex.D5 deed and he utilized the credit facility from the Complainant Company. It is also the evidence of D.W.1 that she never issued any cheques through the said Adinarayanamurthy or directly to the Complainant company; that she does not know the business transactions between the Complainant
Company and A1 Firm till Ex.P9 Statutory legal notice in this case was re- 13 ceived by her; that after receipt of the original of Ex.P9 Statutory legal notice, she enquired with the Complainant Company and informed them that the business affairs of A1 firm were already entrusted to G.Adi- narayana Murthy under Ex.D5 deed of Transfer of ownership and she has not given any Cheques in favour of the Complainant Company; and that she got issued Ex.P12 Reply notice to the said Statutory legal notice and also gave a report in II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam against the said G.Adinarayana Murthy alleging that she never issued any cheques in favour of the Complainant firm and the said Adinarayana- murthy forged her signatures on the cheques and gave the same to the
Complainant Company as if she issued the cheques and the police regis- tered her report as Ex.D4 FIR and never called her for further investiga- tion and they referred the matter as civil in nature without properly in- vestigating into the matter and also without giving any notice to her. It is also her evidence that she obtained the copy of FIR and final report under Right to information Act 2005 from the Station House Officer, II
Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam in respect of Ex.D4 FIR and that
Ex.D6 is her application dated 30-08-2013 and the letter of Station House
Officer, II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City enclosing copy of the
Report submitted by the Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station,
Visakhapatnam, referring the matter as Civil in Nature to the Hon' ble
Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Visakhapat- nam along with its enclosures.
14
(vii) D.W.2, who is the husband of D.W.1, stated in his evi- dence that he used to get credit facility from the daily news paper in publishing the adds given from Keerthikaar Adds established by him in the year 1984 in the name of his wife i.e. D.W.1 and G.Adinarayana
Murthy who joined as office boy in the year 1988 in the said Keerthikaar
Adds used to assist him in collecting the advertisements from the cus- tomers and giving the same in the office of the daily news papers for publication. It is also the evidence of D.W.2 that the said Adinarayana- murthy used to obtain the signatures of D.W.1 in respect of the business of Keerthikaar Adds since 1988 or 1989 and that he handed over the business of Keerthikaar Adds to the said Adinarayanamurthy on a condi- tion to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month to
D.W.1 under Ex.D5 Agreement dated 14-11-2007. He also stated in his ev- idence that he has not informed to the publishers and others about handing over the business to the said Adinarayanamurthy on the above condition.
(viii)D.W.2 stated in his evidence that generally the Release order with corrections cannot be accepted by the publishers and the release order dated 10-12-2007 bearing NBO.978 in Ex.P14 bunch of documents contained several corrections; that the publishers cannot extend the time for payment of the bills beyond the grace period of thirty days with- out any request in writing to them and its approval; that Release order shall be separately given to each customer and it should not be issued for more than one customer and the said Adinarayanamurthy manipu- 15 lated the Release orders in collusion with the officials of Enadu publish- ers and showed as if A1 firm shall pay the amount to the publishers for purpose of their gain.
(ix)It is evident from the above evidence of D.W.2 who is the husband of D.W.1 that he used to get credit facility from the daily news paper in publishing the adds given from A1 firm established by him in the year 1984 in the name of his wife i.e. D.W.1 and G.Adinarayana
Murthy who joined as office boy in the year 1988 in A1 Firm used to as- sist him in collecting the advertisements from the customers and giving the same in the office of the daily news papers for publication. It is also evident from the above evidence of D.W.2 that the said Adinarayana- murthy used to obtain the signatures of D.W.1 in respect of the business of Keerthikaar Adds since 1988 or 1989 and that he handed over the business of Keerthikaar Adds to the said Adinarayanamurthy on a condi- tion to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month to
D.W.1 under Ex.D5 Deed of Transfer of ownership dated 14-11-2007 and that he has not informed to the publishers and others about handing over the business to the said Adinarayanamurthy on the above condi- tion.
(x)It is elicited in the cross-examination of D.W.1 that she is the owner of A1 Firm and both A1 firm and the Lakshmi Designers are lo- cated in the same place and her husband used to look after both A1 firm and the said Lakshmi Designers. It is also elicited in the cross-examina- tion of D.W.1 that she used to sign on the Cheques and also other corre- 16 spondence papers as and when they were brought either by her hus- band or Adinarayanamurthy. D.W.1 stated in her cross-examination that she does not know the contents of Ex.D5 Deed of Transfer of ownership and she does not know whether any letter was addressed to her banker after entering into Ex,D5 agreement requesting the banker not to hon- our the cheques issued by her without prior intimation to her. It was suggested to D.W.1 in her cross-examination that Ex.D5 Deed of Transfer of ownership is created on the old stamp paper for the purpose of this case and it was brought into existence to escape from the liability in this case and also from the other cases filed against her. She denied the said suggestion. D.W.1 admitted in her cross-examination that Adinarayana- murthy utilized the credit facility on the account of A1 firm and that she never addressed any letter to the banker of A1 Firm not to give any credit facility without her consent and that she signed on blank cheques on one or two occasions believing Adinarayanamurthy.
(xi)D.W.2 stated in his cross-examination that he was not present at the time of entering into Ex.D5 Agreement between D.W.1 and the said Adinarayanamurthy and he does not know who actually pre- pared Ex.D5 document. It is also the evidence of D.W.2 that no accounts were maintained for the business of A1 firm and that D.W.1 used to sign on the documents relating to A1 firm in consultation with him. Admit- tedly, the copies of Ex.D5 Agreement were not sent to the Complainant or to the banker and in Ex.D5 Deed of Transfer of ownership, the details of accounts i.e. the credits and debits and also the outstanding liabilities 17 and assets of Keerthikaar were not mentioned.
(xii)Some corrections in some of the bills in Ex.P14 Bunch of bills were elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1. Ex.P13 statement of Ac- count of A1 Firm maintained in the Complainant company was marked without any objection. It was simply suggested to P.W.1 in his cross-ex- amination that Exs.P13 and P14 are created for the purpose of this case.
The learned counsel for the accused contended that Ex.P13 statement of account is not enclosed with the certificate under Section 65 B of Indian
Evidence Act. But the said objection was not taken at the time of mark- ing of Ex.P13 statement of Account of A1 firm maintained in the Com- plainant Company. Ex.P14 consists of 242 bills with its enclosures and
Ex.P13 also consists of several pages. Simply because, the accounts were not shown as audited and the CD of Ex.P13 is not filed, they cannot be thrown out in the light of the above evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2. As seen from the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2, A1 firm represented by A2 did busi- ness with the Complainant Company by availing the credit facility. It is the specific version of A2 that the ownership of A1 firm along with its ac- tivities/duties/responsibilities was transferred to G.Adinarayana Murthy and therefore A1 Firm represented by A2 is not at all liable for the al- leged offence. But the Complainant Company disputed the said Ex.D5 unregistered Deed of Transfer of Ownership and it is the version of the
Complainant Company that it is brought into existence on the old stamp paper for the purpose of this case. The learned counsel for the accused contended that no rejoinder was issued to Exs.P12 Reply notice got is- 18 sued by A2 denying the above version of the accused. Admittedly no re- joinder was issued to Ex.P12 Reply notice by the Complainant. But it was clearly mentioned in the Complaint that the accused gave Ex.P12 reply notice with false allegations. Issuance of Rejoinder to Ex.P12 reply notice is not mandatory. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Complainant ac- cepted the contents of Ex.P12 i.e., Ex.D3 Reply notice got issued by A1 firm represented by A2. As the Complainant strongly disputed the valid- ity of Ex.D5 Deed of transfer of ownership, A2 ought to have proved the contents of the same. But except the interested testimony of D.Ws. 1 and 2, there is no other independent evidence on record to prove the con- tents of Ex.D5 Deed of Transfer of ownership. In the above circum- stances of the case, A2 ought to have examined the witnesses to Ex.D5
Deed of Transfer of ownership of A1 Firm. If they are examined, the truth would come out. But they are not examined for the reasons best known to her. Further, it is evident from the evidence of D.W.2 who established
A1 firm in the name of his wife D.W.1 that he was not present at the time of execution of Ex.D5 and he does not know who actually prepared
Ex.D5 document and that in Ex.D5 the details of accounts i.e. the credits and debits and also the outstanding liabilities and assets of A1 Firm
Keerthikaar were not mentioned. Admittedly, the copies of Ex.D5 Deed of Transfer of ownership were not sent to the Complainant or the bankers. If really Ex.D5 deed of transfer of ownership was entered into between D.W.1 and G.Adinarayana Murthy as stated by D.Ws. 1 and 2, they would have sent the copy of the same to the Complainant Com- 19 pany. But as stated above, they have not the sent the same to the Com- plainant Company and even as seen from the above evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2, it was not published. Further as seen from Ex.P12 i.e., Ex.D3 Reply notice, it was mentioned that the said G.Adinarayaa Murthy informed about execution of Ex.D5 deed of transfer of ownership to the Com- plainant under Registered letter dated 10-05-2008 by sending copy of the letter to A2 which was received by A2 on 11-05-2008. But the said let- ter is not filed into court by A2. As seen from the cross-examination of
D.W.2, initially he stated that he was not present at the time of execution of Ex.D5 deed of transfer of ownership and he does not know who pre- pared the same and again he stated that the execution of Ex.D5 docu- ment was known to him, D.W.1 and the witnesses to Ex.D5 only. The above circumstances of the casecreat a doubt in the mind of the Court in respect of execution of Ex.D5 Deed of transfer of ownership by A1 firm represented by A2 in favour of G.Adinarayana Murthy. Further a careful perusal of the contents of Ex.D5 Deed of transfer of ownership shows that the transfer of bank account of A1 firm from A2 to G.Adinarayana
Murty and cancellation of overdraft facility would be attended later. Ad- mittedly the bank account of A1 firm was not transferred in the name of
G.Adinarayana Murthy. As per the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2, the alleged
Royalty of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) was not paid.
Ex.D5 is dated 14-11-2007 and D.Ws.1 and 2 gave evidence on 10-05- 2024 and 16-10-2024 respectively. If really Ex.D5 Deed of transfer of ownership dated 14-11-2007 was in existence, G.Adinarayana Murthy 20 would have paid the royalty as mentioned in Ex.D5 to A2 for some time or on failure to pay the same, certainly A2 would have asked him to pay the same by giving a legal notice. But D.Ws. 1 and 2 stated in their re- spective evidence that Royality was not paid by G.Adinarayana Murthy. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that it was brought into existence for the purpose of this case as contended by the learned counsel for the Complainant.
(xiii)It is evident from the above evidence of D.W.2 that ac- counts were not maintainedfor the business of A1 Firm and D.W.1 used to sign on the documents relating to A1 firm in consultation with him. It was suggested to P.W.1 in his cross-examination that the accused has nothing to do with the cheques and that the signatures on the cheques are not that of the accused and they are forged and therefore the ac- cused is not liable for the amount under the three cheques. It was sug- gested to D.W.1 that she herself signed on Exs.P3 to P5 Cheques and gave the same to A1 Firm towards outstanding liability. But D.W.1 denied the said suggestion.
(xiv)A2 got examined D.Ws.3 and 4 to prove that her signa- tures on Exs.P3 to P5 cheques were forged. In the evidence of D.W.3, Se- nior Assistant in the office of District Registrar, Guntur, Ex.D8 Certified copy of the Gift Deed dated 14-12-2017 executed by D.W.1 in favour of
Lankipalli Keerthi and Ex.P9 copy of the document containing the thumb impressions and the signatures of D.W.1 in respect of the said Gift Deed in the Thumb Impression Register were marked. D.W.4 stated in his evi- 21 dence that Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam
City addressed Ex.D10 letter dated 26-06-205 to him in reply to the memo issued by him stating that no record was found in respect of
Crime No.477/2009 Under Section 465 IPC of II Town Police Station,
Visakhapatnam. In his cross-examination, D.W.4 stated that as per
Ex.D10 the matter was referred as civil in nature and on verification, no record was found to confirm whether final report was filed or not.
(xv) As seen from the record, as per the orders of the Hon' ble
Appellate Court, on 24-06-2029 this court sent Exs.P3 to P5 cheques to- gether with the admitted signatures of A2 which were taken in open court for purpose of comparision of the signatures on Exs.P3 to P5 cheques with the admitted signatures of A2 and the Director, APFSL,
Mangalagiri in its letter in APFSL/Doc/ Genl/ 2019/ 245 dated 02-07-2019 returned the same stating that the standards received are insufficient to form an opinion with a request to retransmit along with some more ad- mitted English signatures of A2 around the period 2008 for the purpose of comparison. But A2 has not taken any steps to comply with the said remarks of the Director, RFSL, Mangalagiri. The learned counsel for the accused prayed this court to compare the admitted signatures of A2 on
Ex.D8 Certified copy of Gift deed dated 14-12-2017 and Ex.D9 copy of the document containing the thumb impressions and the signatures of the accused in respect of the said Gift deed dated 14-12-2017 in the
Thumb Impression Register with the disputes signatures of A2 on Ex.P3 cheque dated 22.02.2008, Ex.P5 cheque dated 05-03-2008 and Ex.P7 22
Cheque dated 09-05-2008 as per the provisions of Section 73 of the In- dian Evidence Act. The signatures of A2 on Exs.D8 and D9 documents are not the contemparaneous signatures of A2 as contended by the learned counsel for the Complainant to compare the disputed signatures of A2 on Exs.P3 to P5 Cheques dated 22-02-2008, 05-03-2008 and 09-05-2008.
Further as stated above, the Director required some more admitted Eng- lish signatures of A2 around the period 2008. A careful comparison of the signatures of A2 on Ex.D5 Deed of transfer of ownership dated 14- 11-2007 and the signatures of A2 on the examinations of the accused
Under Section 251 and 313 of Cr.P.C and on her deposition with the sig- natures on Exs.P3 to P5 cheques, it appears to the naked eye that the signatures on Exs.P3 to P5 Cheques are also the signatures of A2. Com- ing to Ex.D4 FIR in Crime No.477/2009 dated 16-11-2009 of II Town Police
Station, Visakhapatnam, registered Under Section 465 IPC against G.Adi- narayana Murty, admittedly it was referred as civil in nature. The learned counsel for the accused contended that before referring the matter, no- tice was not given to A2. As seen from the evidence of D.W.4, no record was found to confirm whether Final Report was filed or not. But Ex.D6 documents shows that the said case was referred as Civil in nature. Ad- mittedly, A2 has not filed any private Complaint against the said G.Adi- narayana Murthy. Though it is the version of A2 and that police did not property investigate into the case and they have not issued any notice to her before referring the matter to the Court as civil in nature, she has not taken any steps against them. It is also for A2 to pursue the matter.
23
But she has not taken any initiative to proceed against G.Adinarayana murthy. Admittedly, Ex.D4 FIR was registered against G.Adinarayana
Murthy after receipt of Ex.P9 statutory legal notice by A2 and after is- suance of Ex.P12 i.e., Ex.D3 Reply notice to Ex.P9 statutory legal notice.
Therefore, the above defence theory of the accused is not appeared to be probable and believable.
(xvi) The initial burden is on the Complainant to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and if it proves its case, then the burden shifts to the accused to disprove the same by prepon- derance of Probability. As stated above, the complainant by examining its employee as P.W.1 and marking Exs. P13 Statement of Account of the accused maintained in the Complainant Company and Ex.P14 bunch of bills proved that A1 firm did business with the Complainant Company by using credit facility and the alleged amount was due from A1 Firm. As stated above, as per the evidence of D.W.2, A1 firm has not maintained any accounts and it is the version of the accused that the ownership of
A1 Firm was transferred to G.Adinarayana Murthy and therefore A2 is not liable to pay the amount. As stated above, the accused failed to dis- prove the case of the Complainant by preponderance of probability.
Therefore, the presumption Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instru- ments Act shall be drawn in favour of the Complainant Company that
Exs.P3 to P5 were issued by A1 firm represented by A2 towards pay- ments of the amount due to the Complainant Company.
24
(xvii)Coming to the service of statutory legal notice on the accused, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that after returning of Exs.P3 to P5 cheques vide Exs.P6 to P8 Cheque Return memos, the Complainant got issued a statutory legal notice dated 22-05-2008 under the original of
Ex.P9 on 28-05-2008 to both the accused demanding to pay the amounts covered by Exs.P3 to P5 Cheques i.e.,11,05,560/- (Rupees eleven lakhs, five thousand, and five hundred and sixty only) within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice was served on A1 on 29-05-2008 vide Ex.P10 Postal Acknowledgment, but the notice sent to A2 was returned unserved with an endorsement 'Intimation served' on 31-05-2008 vide Ex.P11 unserved Returned Registered Post Cover and
A1 got issued Ex.P12 Reply Notice dated 13-06-2008 with false allega- tions. In the light of the above evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P9 statutory legal notice and Ex.P12 Reply Notice, it can be safely concluded that P.W.1 has complied with the mandatory provision under section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act in giving statutory legal notice to the accused before filing this complaint.
(xviii) The learned counsel for the accused relied the following decisions in respect of standard of proof.
2025 Latest Caselaw 3418 (Gandepally Suvathsala vs Bod- direddy Rajpal Reddy) wherein the Civil Revision Petition was allowed set- ting aside directing the trial court to obtain the signature of the peti- tioner-defendant in the open court and send the same to the expert for comparison with the disputed signature on the suit promissory note. In 25 this case, the expert required contemporaneousness signatures of the accused and the same was not complied with by the accused.
AIR 2015 SC (CRI) 333 (K.Subramani vs. K.Damodara Naidu) wherein the appeal was allowed and Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court was restored observing that on a consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the complainant had no source of income to lend a sum of rupees four- teen lakhs to the accused and he failed to prove that there was legally recoverable debt payable by the accused to him and that the said conclu- sion of the trial court has been arrived at on proper appreciation of ma- terial evidence on record. The facts of the present case is quite deferent from the facts of the said case and therefore, it is not squarely applicable to this case.
AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2773 (Kali Ram Vs.State of Hi- machal Pradesh) and it pertains to the offence Under Section 302 IPC and therefore it is not applicable to this case. 1984 CRILJ 1738 (Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra) and it pertains to the case of suicidal death and therefore it is not applicable to this case.1966 AIR 1762 (V.D.Jhangan Vs. tate of Uttar Pradesh) and 1972 AIR 716 (S.L.-
Goswami vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. These decisions pertain to the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore, they are not applicable to this case .
(xix)In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Complainant proved its case against A1 and A2 for 26 the alleged offence Under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act be- yond reasonable doubt. The point is accordingly answered.
08. In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty of the offence Under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and they are convicted Under
Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.
Sd/- A. Ramachandra Rao,
1st Special Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
09.When A2 is heard on the question of sentence to be imposed on her, she pleaded mercy. She submits that she is aged about 62 years and she has two daughters and they performed the marriages of their two daughters. She further submits that she and her husband have been living and there are no other persons to look after them and that they have been suffering from illhealth. She, therefore, prays to take a lenient view in sentencing her.
10.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to invoke provisions of
Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 of Cr.P.C. But considering the above submission of A2 and the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to take a lenient view in sentencing A2.
11.Accordingly, A2 is sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.11,15,000/- 27 (Rupees eleven lakhs and fifteen thousand only) in default to suffer simply imprisonment for 15 days for the offence Under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Out of the said fine amount of
Rs.11,15,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs and fifteen thousand only), an amount of Rs.11,10,000/- (Rupees eleven laksh and ten thousand only) shall be paid to the Complainant towards compensation Under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. A2 is directed to pay the said compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment. The bail bond of A2 shall stand cancelled. A2 is informed of her right to prefer an appeal before
Hon’ble Sessions Court against this judgment and she is also informed
about her right to get free legal aid from District Legal Services
Authority, if she has no means.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.
Sd/- A. Ramachandra Rao,
1st SPECIAL MAGISTRATE,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.
WITNESSES EXAMINED.
FOR COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1:01-10-2012: Vanamina Venkata Ramana,Representative of the Complainant Company.
FOR ACCUSED:
D.W.1:10-05-2024: Parvathaneni Padmaja, 2nd Accused. D.W.2:16-10-2024: P.Syam Prasad, Husband of D.W.1. D.W.3:07-05-2025: M.Harikishan, Senior Assistant, District Registrar's Office, Gunturu.
28
D.W.4:24-07-2025: K.Lakshmana Murthy, Assistant Commissioner of Police, East Sub Division, Visakhapatham.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1:30-03-2010:Board Resolution dated 28-03-2007 issued in favour of P.W.1.
Ex.P2:28-03-2007: Certificate of Incorporation of the Complainant Company.
Cheque bearing No.250915 for Rs.2,15,908/- (Rupees Ex.P3:22-02-2008: two lakhs, fifteen thousand, nine hundred and eight only) dated 22-02-2008 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Visakhapatnam Main Branch, issued by the accused in favour of the Complainant.
Ex.P4:22-02-2008:Cheque bearing No.250916 for Rs.4,82,426/- (Rupees four lakhs, eighty two thousand, four hundred and twenty six only) dated 22-02-2008 drawn on Karnataka
Bank Ltd., Visakhapatnam Main Branch, issued by the accused in favour of the Complainant.
Cheque bearing No.250917 for Rs.4,07,182/- (Rupees Ex.P5:05-03-2008: four lakhs, seven thousand, one hundred and eighty two only) dated 05-03-2008 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd.,
Visakhapatnam Main Branch, issued by the accused in favour of the Complainant.
Ex.P6:06-05-2008:Cheque Return Memo dated 06-05-2008 issued by
Karnataka Bank Limited, Jagadamba Junction,
Visakhapatnam, in respect of Ex.P5 Cheque.
29
Ex.P7:09-05-2008:Cheque Return Memo dated 09-05-2008 issued by
Karnataka Bank Limited, Jagadamba Junction,
Visakhapatnam, in respect of Ex.P4 Cheque.
Ex.P8:09-05-2008: Cheque Return Memo dated 09-05-2008 issued by
Karnataka Bank Limited, Jagadamba Junction,
Visakhapatnam, in respect of Ex.P3 Cheque.
Office copy of the Statutory Legal Notice got issued by Ex.P9:28-05-2008: the Complainant to the accused.
ExP10:29-05-2008:Postal Acknowledgment of 1st Accused.
Unserved Returned Registered Post Cover with an ExP11:31-05-2008: endorsement 'Intimation Served' dated 31-05-2008 addressed to the 2nd Accused.
Reply Lawyer's Notice dated 13-06-2008 got issued by ExP12:13-06-2008: the accused to the Complainant.
Statement of Account maintained by the Complainant in ExP13:- - - - - - - - : respect of 1st Accused.
ExP14:- - - - - - - -:Bunch of 242 Bills together with xerox copies of release orders and xerox copy of paper publications enclosed to eachbill (Marked subject to objection with regard to relevancy and proof raised by the defence counsel) 30
FOR ACCUSED :
Ex.D1/12-06-2008: Postal Receipt bearing No.5124 dated 12-06-2008 addressedtoK.V.Rammurthy,D.No.48-8-9,
Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam.
Ex.D2/12-06-2008: Postal Acknowledgment of K.V.Rammurthy in respect of
Ex.D1 Postal Receipt.
Reply Notice got issued by 2nd Accused to Sri Ex.D3/12-06-2008: K.V.Rammurthy and Sri K.Narasimha Murthy, Advocates, to Ex.P9 Statutory legal notice dated 28-05-2008.
Ex.D4/16-11-2009: True copy of FIR in Crime No. 477/2009 Under Section 465 of IPC of II Town Police Station, Visakhpatnam, registered on the report given by 2nd Accused against
G.Adinarayana Murthy.
Unregistered Deed of Transfer of ownership and Ex.D5/14-11-2007: Activities/Duties/Responsibilities dated 14-11-2007 entered into between D.W.1 (Accused) and
G.Adinarayana Murthy.
Ex.D6/30-08-2013:Application of the accused (D.W.1) dated 30-08-2013 and the letter of Station House Officer, II Town Police station,
Visakhkapatnam City enclosing the copy of the report submitted by Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station,
Visakhapatnam, referring the matter as Civil in nature to the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Visakhapatnam along with its enclosures i.e., 161 Cr.P.C.
31
Statements of L.Ws. 1 and 2 and the copy of the FIR.
Ex.D7/01-05-2025: Letter dated 01-05-2025 of Joint Sub-Registrar-1,
Registrar Office, Gunatur.
Certified copy of the Gift Deed bearing NO.10294/2017 Ex.D8/14-12-2017:
dated 14-12-2017 executed by the 2nd Accused (D.W.1) in
faour of Lankipalli Keerthi in the office of District
Registrar, Guntur which bears the signatures of the 2nd
Accused (D.W.1).
Ex.D9/14-12-2017:Copy of the document containing the thumb impression and the signature of the accused P.Padmaja in respect of the said Gift Deed dated 14-12-2017 in the Thumb
Impression Register bearing Volume No.939 for the period from 30-10-2017 to 19-12-2017 (Compared with the original and found correct)
Letter dated 26-06-2025 addressed by Inspector of ExD10/26-06-2025: Police, II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, to D.W.4 stating that no record was found in respect of the Crime
No.477/2009 Under Section 465 of IPC of II Town Police
Station, Visakhapatnam.
Sd/- A. Ramachandra Rao,
Ist. Special Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
32
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF I SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM.
C.C.No.43/2011 (Old C.C.No.833/2008 & 1490/2008)
a)Offence : 09/05/08
b)Complaint : 27/09/08
c)Apprehensionof : 29/01/11 Accused
d)Commencement of : 01/10/12 Trial
e)Close of Trial: 24/07/25
f)Judgment: 08/05/26
g)Nameofthe : M/s Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Complainant represented by its Jr. Executive
Accounts,
Duddupudi Chandra Sekhar Rao
S/o Satyanarayana,
Vanamina Venkata Ramana
S/o Suryanarayana, Aged 49 years,
EENADU Compound,
Seethammadhara,
Visakhapatnam-530 013.
Yarla Mukunda Rao 33
S/o Late Y.Lakshmi Narayana,
Aged 54 years, D.No.12-34,
Sramsakthi Nagar,
Chinnamushidiwada,
Visakhkapatham-530 051 (Authorised Person name is amended as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.
5150/2025 dated 21-08-2025)
h)Nameofthe : 1) M/s KEERTIKAR, The Advertisers, Accused. Rep.by its sole Proprietrix,
Smt. Parvataneni Padmaja
W/o Shyam Prasad,Aged 35 years,
G-4, Classic Complex,
Prakasaraopeta, Dabagardens,
Visakhapatnam-530 020.
2)Smt. Parvataneni Padmaja
W/o Shyam Prasad, Aged 35 years,
G-4, Classic Complex,
Prakasaraopeta, Dabagardens,
Visakhapatnam-530 020.
i)Offence: U/Sec. 138 of N.I.Act.
j)Plea of Accused: Pleaded not guilty.
k)Finding: GUILTY
l)Result: A1 and A2 are found guilty of the offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted Under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., A2 is sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.11,15,000/- (Rupees 34 eleven lakhs and fifteen thousand only) in default to suffer simply imprisonment for 15 days for the offence Under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Out of the said fine amount of Rs.11,15,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs and fifteen thousand only), an amount of Rs.11,10,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs and ten thousand only) shall be paid to the Complainant towards compensation Under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. A2 is directed to pay the said compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment. The bail bond of A2 shall stand cancelled. A2 is informed of her right to prefer an appeal before Hon’ble Sessions Court against this judgment and she is also informed about her right to get free legal aid from District Legal Services Authority, if she has no means.
m) Explanation for delay: Originally this Complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and it was taken cognizance of the offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused after taking sworn affidavit of the Complainant and numbered as C.C.No.833/2008 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. When the matter was coming up for appearance of the accused, it was transferred to the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhpatnam and numbered as C.C.NO.1490/2008 on the file of IV
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam. On
appearance of A1 and A2, copies of documents were furnished to them Under Section 207 Cr.P.C., on 07-1-2011. When examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offence, A1 and A2 pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed to be tried. When the matter was coming up for trial, it was transferred to this Court and numbered as C.C.No.43/2011 on the file of this Court. During the course of trial, Vanamina Venkata Ramana, Office Assistant (Accounts Incharge) of the the Complainant himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. Exs. D1 to D4 were marked in the cross-examination of P.W.1 on behalf of the accused. After 35 closure of the evidence on behalf of the Complainant, when both the accused were examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of PW.1, they denied the same and reported defence witnesses. When the matter was coming up for defence evidence, the accused filed a petition to send Exs.P3 to P5 cheques with the signatures taken in open court along with the specimen signatures available in Bank for the account bearing No.10042 of Karnataka Bank Limited, Jagadamba Branch, Visakhapatnam, for comparison of the signatures on Exs.P3 to P5 cheques vide Crl.M.P.No.2791/2016, a petition Under Section 315 of Cr.P.C., praying the Court to permit her to examine herself as a defence witness vide Cr.M.P.No. 2792/2016, and a petiton Under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., praying the court to summon the Branch Manager, Karnataka Bank Limited, Jagadamba Junction Branch, Visakhapatnam to produce the entire record including the specimen signatures of the account holder relating to the Bank Account bearing No.10042 of M/s Keerthikar Advertisers vide Cr.M.P.No.3523/2019 and they were dismissed on 15-03-2017, 15- 03-2017 and 26-02-2020 respectively by my learned predecessor. The petitioner/A2 preferred Revision against the orders in Cr.M.P.Nos.2791/2016 and 2792/2016 dated 15-03-2017 vide Crl.R.P.Nos.71/2017 and 70/2017 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and the said Revision petitions were allowed on 22-10-2018 with a direction to permit the petitioner/A2 to examine herself as a defence witness and to send Exs.P3 to P5 cheques, admitted signatures of the petitioner/A2 available on record and the specimen signatures to be taken in open court after giving time to the petitioner/A2 to deposit the necessary fees of expert as fixed by the trial court. Accordingly, on 24-06-2029 this court sent Exs.P3 to P5 cheques together with the admitted signatures of the 2nd Accused which were taken in open court for purpose of comparision of the signatures on Exs.P3 to P5 cheques with the admitted signatures of 2nd Accused. The Director, APFSL, Mangalagiri vide letter in APFSL/Doc/Genl/2019/245 dated 02-07-2019 returned the same 36 stating that the standards received are insufficient to form an opinion with a request to retransmit along with some more admitted English signatures of 2nd Accused around the period 2008 for the purpose of comparison. But the 2nd Accused has not taken any steps to comply with the said remarks of the Director, RFSL, Mangalagiri. Later the petitioner/A2 filed Petitions praying the court to reopen her evidence and to summon the police officials in respect of FIR in Crime No.477/2009 dated 16-11-2009 registered for the offence Under Section 465 of IPC against G.Adinarayana Murthy on the report given by her vide Cr.M.P.Nos.834/2022 & 835/2022 and they were also dismissed on 5-12-2022 by my learned predecessor. After taking charge of the post of I Special Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, by me, the accused filed two petitions Under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., praying the court to reopen the matter so as to enable her to examine herself as a defence witness and to permit her to examine herself as defence witnesses, and a petition Under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., to summon the witnesses i.e., the Station House Officer of II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam and Joint Sub-Registrar, Guntur, vide Cr.M.P.Nos.1082/2023, 1082/2023 and 8570/2024 respectively and in view of the orders of the Hon'ble Appellate Court in the above Criminal Revision Petitions preferred by the accused, they were allowed on 28-12-2023 and 07-04-2025 respectively. On behalf of the accused, the accused herself examined as D.W.1 and got examined D.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.D5 to D10. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Complainant and the accused. Hence delay. A2 is released on bail Under Section 389(3) of Cr.P.C., till 08-06- 2026 so as to enable her to prefer an appeal against this judgment as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.2170/2026 dated 08.05.2026. A2 paid
fine amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only).
Sd/- A. Ramachandra Rao,
1st Special Magistrate,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
Copy submitted to:
37
The Hon’ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.