Sri P.V. Prasada Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: AMALAPURAM

Present : Sri P.V.Prasada Rao, B.sc, B.Ed, B.L. L.L.M., Special Magistrate,

Friday the 8th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No.848 of 2022

(Cr.No.152/2020 of Allavaram PS.)

Between:

State- represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Allavaram PS. …….Complainant.

And

1) Anyam Gangaraju @ Gangachalam, S/o.Suryudu, Age 55 years, Kedarilanka village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, Driver of Tractor bearing Registration No.AP37AE6949.

2) Oleti Srinu, S/o.Sathiraju, Age 39 years, S.Yanam village, Uppalaguptam Mandal, Owner of Honda Activa Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.AP05DU7481.

……..Accused

This case coming on for final hearing before me on 06-05-2026, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State complainant and of Sri N.CH.Venkateswara Rao, B.V.Prasada Babu Advocates for the Accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following -:: JUDGMENT ::

1.This case was transferred to this court from the file of Addl.Judicial First Class

Magistrate's court, Amalapuram for disposal according to law.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police of Allavaram Police Station filed the charge sheet against Accused no.1 and 2 for the offence under Sections 304-A, 338, 337 of IPC and Section 180, 181 Motor Vehicle Act in Cr. No.152/2020 said to have been committed by the accused.

3.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

The deceased by name Oleti Krishnaveni and resident of Bendamurlanka village, Allavaram Mandal. On 25.6.2020 morning she went to Katrenikona Village along with her elder daughter in law Oleti Nagalakshmi and her elder sister’s son Oleti Rajesh on their Honda Activa Bearing Registration No.AP05DU7481 while Oleti Rajesh drove the motor cycle, after completion of 2 their work in Katrenikona they are all started from Katrenikona village on the same motor cycle and proceeded towards Rebbanapalli, and when they reached Mogallamuru Sachivalayam on Turpulanka-Mogallamuru Road at about 11.00 AM, one tractor registration No.AP37AE6949 with bricks load was proceeding on the same direction behind their motorcycle, in the mean time one rider of bicycle suddenly came across their motorcycle in front of Kandregula Rambabu terraced house, due to which he applied sudden breaks and stopped their motor cycle, but the driver of the tractor A.1 who is proceeding behind them drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with an high speed and dashed their motor cycle from back side, due to which the deceased along with Oleti Nagalakshmi and Oleti Rajesh fell on the ground and the tractor proceeded over the deceased and Oleti Nagalakshmi due to which the deceased sustained injuries on her hip to both legs ankles and Oleti Nagalakshmi and Oleti Rajesh also sustained injuries on their person, due to which they are all admitted in Srinidhi Hospital, Amalapuram for treatment, as per the advice of the duty doctor deceased got shifted to Surnrice Hospital, Kakinada for better treatment, then the deceased got treated in the same hospital up to 28.7.2020 and discharged from the hospital and continued the treatment at her house for her injuries but on 14.9.2020 evening at about 5.30 PM, deceased succumbed with the injuries sustained by her in the accident at her house, hence the deceased family members informed the same to the Police, the deceased died with the injuries sustained by her. 3.1)On receipt of MLC intimation LW.16 (B.Ramachandra Rao) Head constable visited the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.152/2020 under Section 337 IPC of Allavaram P.S. During the course of investigation LW.16 visited the hospital and recorded the statements of PW.1 and PW.2 and the deceased as LW.3 (Katta Venkateswararao). Then he visited the scene of offence and inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, then he examined the direct witnesses Pws.3 to 5 and in the scene of offence and recorded their detailed statements. On 26.6.2020 LW.18 (B.Prabhakararao) Sub-Inspector of Police, Allavaram P.S verified the investigation done by LW.16. During the course of investigation on 15.7.2020 LW.18 served notice to A.1 under Section 41 (1) (A) Cr.P.C with instructions to appear

before the Honble Court. Then on 14.9.2020 PW.1 another time lodged a written report in the Police

Station that Oleti Krishnaveni died at their house on 14.9.2020 at 5.30 PM on receipt of the written report when LW.17 (K.Satyanarayana) altered the section of law to 304(A), 337 IPC on 14.9.2020. Then on 15.9.2020 LW.17 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest to mediators i.e., PW.10, LW.11 (Musunuri Mangaiah), LW.12(Kollu Suryanarayana) and in the presence of blood relatives and send the dead body for autopsy. During the course of investigation on 19.9.2020, LW.18 Sub-Inspector of Police obtained the Postmortem report of deceased from LW.13 (Dr.J.B.Mounika) Civil Asst Surgeon with her opinion that the deceased died due to road traffic accident. Then on 16.10.2020 LW.18 obtained the wound certificates of PW.1 from LW.14 (Dr.V.Narayanaraju) Medical Officer, Srinidhi Hospital, Amalapuram with his opinion that 3 is “the injuries sustained by PW.1 are in grievous in nature and CCL sustained 3 wounds which are simple in nature. Then on 15.2.2021 LW.18 Sub-Inspector of Police served notice to the A.2 with instructions appear before the Hon’ble Court. LW.15 (K.V.Sivaprasad) Motor Vehicle Inspector, Amalapuram who inspected the vehicle ie., Honda Activa Motorcycle opined that the accident is not due to any prior mechanical defects of the vehicle and on completion of investigation LW.18 filed the charge sheet. Hence the charge.

4.The case was taken on file Under Sections 304-A, 338, 337 of IPC, Section 180, 181 Motor

Vehicle Act by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate's court, Amalapuram.

5.When the accused no.1 and 2 appeared before the court, copies of documents were supplied to them. The accused no.1 and 2 when examined later under Section 274 of BNSS, they denied of having committed any offence. The accused no.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.At the time of trial, the prosecution examined altogether Eleven witnesses.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused no.1 and 2 were examined under section 351 B.N.S.S Act, and the incriminating material in the prosecution evidence was read over to them in telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence. Hence, Defence evidence was closed and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

8.As aforesaid, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 on behalf of the prosecution.

9.Heard both sides.

10.The Learned App has argued before the Court that the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused through the oral evidence of PW.1 to 11 and Exs.P1 to P.8 and hence the accused may be convicted. On the other hand the counsel for the accused argued before the Court except the eye witness i.e., PW.1 none of the witnesses identified the accused as a driver of crime vehicle by the time of accident. Further none of the eye witnesses including PW.1 not stated about the rash or negligent driving of the accused. He further argued that the doctor who treated the injured and I.O who registered the case and another I.O who filed the charge sheet not examined by the prosecution. Further argued that no peace of paper filed by the prosecution to prove that the A.1 is the driver of crime vehicle by the time of accident and A.2 is the owner of the motorcycle bearing 4 No.AP05DU7481 given to the minor Rajesh. The prosecution failed to prove the case of prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt hence the accused may be acquitted.

11. Now the point for determination in this case is: Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 304-A, 338, 337 of IPC and Section 180, 181 Motor Vehicle Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

12. In order to prove the case of prosecution the prosecution examined five witnesses out of 18 cited witnesses in the charge sheet, L.W.1 examined as P.W.1, LW.2 examined as P.W.2, LW.5 and 6 examined as Pws.3 to 4, LW.4 examined as PW.5, LW.7 examined as PW.6, LW.9 examined as PW.7, LW.12 examined as PW.8, LW.15 examined as PW.9, LW.10 examined as PW.10, LW.17 examined as PW.11 and got marked as Exs.P1 to P8. APP given up Lw.8 and 11 (Oleti Krishna and Musunuri Mangaiah) by the prosecution. Due to non-production of witness the LW.3, 13, 14, 18 closed by the Court.

13.Out of five witnesses 18 cited in the charge sheet. Eleven witnesses examined as PW.1 to

11. Here PW.1 is the injured pillion rider of the motorcycle along with deceased Oleti Krishnaveni raided by Oleti Rajesh minor by the time of accident. As per the case of prosecution due to rash or negligent driving of A.1 the accident occurred PW.1, Oleti Krishnaveni and Oleti Rajesh sustained injuries. The said Oleti Krishnaveni died subsequently succumbed injuries. In order to establish that the accused is the driver of crime vehicle and due to his rash or negligent driving the accident occurred. Except PW.1, the independent eye witnesses i.e., PW.5 to 7 not supported the case of prosecution as they did not say anything about the accident and identity of accused as a driver of crime vehicle. They totally turned hostile. Though the learned APP cross-examined them at length but he could not elicit any material in support of prosecution case except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P.1 to P.3. The evidence of PW.1 who is alleged injured eye witness only is there on record to speak about the accident and identity of accused. As per the evidence of PW.1 around four years back on one day at about 11.00 A.M herself deceased Krishnaveni along with Oleti Rajesh rider of motorcycle while coming to Mogallamuru to Katrenikona when they reached Panchayat office Mogallamurru one tractor going infront of their vehicle with rash or negligent manner at the same time one cyclist coming their opposite direction then Rajesh turn the vehicle towards road margin tractor hit the motorcycle and run over the waist and buttocks of deceased Oleti Krishanveni, she herself and Rajesh sustained injuries shifted to Srinidi Hospital. After two months Oleti Krishnaveni died A.1 is the tractor driver. During cross-examination she admitted that she cannot say date of accident and number of the scooty and Rajesh aged about 15 years who is a minor ride the scooty, she herself and Krishnaveni (deceased) are the pillion riders and she knows that minor is not entitled to drive two wheeler. She cannot say the tractor number. Cyclist not dashed the motorcycle and the road on which the travel to the katcha road and not allow the 5 vehicles to move speed manner and accused not known to her. Because other eye witnesses turned hostile her evidence not corroborated with any other eye witnesses i.e., Pws.5 to 7. As the road is katcha road admitted by PW.1 it is not possible to the vehicles to move in speed manner. Since PW.1 not known the accused prior to the accident and not seen subsequently it is highly impossible to identify the accused nearly lapse of five years as she gave evidence on 11.2.2025 even the accident occurred on 25.6.2020. The prosecution not filed any peace of paper like driving license or C Book or Trip sheet to show that the accused is the driver of crime vehicle by the time of accident. Here, as admitted by PW.1 that their scooty driven by minor Oleti Rajesh who is not supposed to drive the scooty, it supports the contention of the accused that Oleti Rajesh Minor who was unable to keep the balance of the vehicle and lost the control of the vehicle and it is self made accident. The other witnesses PW.2 to 4 who were relatives of deceased and PW.1 are hear say witnesses as they came to know about the accident and reached to the Srinidhi Hospital. Because they are the hear say witnesses their evidence not useful to prove the case of prosecution. Further the prosecution failed to produce any material to show that A.2 has given his scooty to Rajesh knowing that he is a Minor. The other witnesses i.e., PW.8 and 10 who are the mediators to the scene observation and inquest support the case of prosecution but their evidence is not useful when the prosecution failed to establish identity of accused and his rash or negligent driving. Coming to the evidence of PW.9 who is MV Inspector and PW.11 who is one of Investigating Officer in this case supported to the prosecution case to the extent of their role not strengthen the case of prosecution because the prosecution failed to establish that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle by the time of accident and due to his rash or negligent the accident occurred as discussed in the above paras. Therefore the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 304-A, 338, 337 I.P.C and Section 180, 181 Motor Vehicle Act.

14. In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 304- A, 338, 337 of IPC and Section 180, 181 Motor Vehicle Act they are acquitted under section.278 BNSS Act/255(1) Cr.P.C, their bail bonds shall stand canceled. They are at liberty.

Dictated to the Grade-III Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me in open

court on this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: none P.W.1: dt.11.2.2025 Oleti Nagalakshmi P.W.2: dt.11.2.2025 Malladi Satyanarayana P.W.3: dt.11.2.2025 Oleti Harikrishna P.W.4: dt.11.2.2025 Oleti Durgaprasad 6 P.W.5: dt.18.2.2025 Kandregula Rambabu P.W.6: dt.3.4.2025 Malladi Durga Babu P.W.7: dt.3.4.2025 Malladi Satyavathi P.W.8: dt.21.8.2025 Kolli Suryanarayana P.W.9: dt.24.2.2026 K.Venkata Siva Prasad P.W.10: dt.26.2.2026 Mathi Venkataramayya P.W.11: dt.13.4.2026 Kadali Satyanarayana

Documents marked for

Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 dt.25.6.2020 161 Cr.P.C statement given by PW.5 to the Station House officer, Allavaram P.S.

Ex.P.2 dt.15.9.2020 161 Cr.P.C statement given by PW.6 to the Station House officer, Allavaram P.S. Ex.P.3 dt.15.9.2020 161 Cr.P.C statement given by PW.7 to the Station House officer, Allavaram P.S.

Ex.P.4 dt.15.9.2020 Inquest report

Ex.P.5 dt.22.2.2021 MVI report

Ex.P.6 dt.14.9.2020 Scene observation report

Ex.P7 dt.25.6.2020 First Information report issued by the Complainant against the accused

Ex.P8 dt.25.6.2020Rough sketch

Defence: Nil

M.Os marked

nil

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

7

Calendar and Judgment

District: East Godavari Calendar case tried by Sri P.V.Prasada Rao, B.sc, B.Ed, B.L. L.L.M., Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Friday the 8th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No.848 of 2022

(Cr.No.152/2020 of Allavaram PS.)

Dates of: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - offencecomplaintApprehen-Accusedcommence-close ofSentence sion of released ment oftrial or accusedon bailtrial order 25.6.2020 25.6.2020 A.1 15.7.2020 15.7.2020 18.2.2025 21.4.2026 8.5.2026 A.2 10.6.2021 10.6.2021 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - Explanation for delay: No delay This case was transferred to this court on the file of Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Amalapuram. Judgment pronounced on 8.5.2026

Name and address of the complainant: State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Allavaram P.S. Name and address of the accused: 1) Anyam Gangaraju @ Gangachalam, S/o.Suryudu, Age 55 years, Kedarilanka (v), Kapileswarapuram Mandal, Driver of Tractor bearing Registration No.AP37AE6949.

2) Oleti Srinu, S/o.Sathiraju, Age 39 years, S.Yanam village, Uppalaguptam Mandal, Owner of Honda Activa Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.AP05DU7481. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Section of law: 304-A, 338, 337 of IPC and Section 180, 181 Motor Vehicle Act Plea of the accused: Not guilty. Finding of the court: Not guilty. Sentence or order: In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 304-A, 338, 337 of IPC and Section 180, 181 Motor Vehicle Act they are acquitted under section.278 BNSS Act/255(1) Cr.P.C, their bail bonds shall stand canceled. They are at liberty.

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram. Copy submitted to the Hon'ble IInd Addl.District & Sessions

Judge, Amalapuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: AMALAPURAM

Present: Sri P.V.Prasada Rao, B.sc, B.Ed, B.L. L.L.M., Special Magistrate Friday, the 15th day of May, 2026.

Calendar Case No. 59 of 2018

Between: Adapa Vemana Yogeswara Rao, S/o.Bhyrava Swamy, Age 50 years, Resident of G.Agraharam, Ambajipeta Mandal.

------Complainant

and

Meesala Akkamma, W/o.Pedda Apparao, Age 51 years, Resident of D.No.45-6-8, Ashok Nagar, Bypass Road, Rajahmundry.

------ Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 15-05-2026 in the presence of Sri.Md.Azam Advocate for Complainant and Sri C.V.Suryanarayana Advocate for Accused, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following

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

1.This case was transferred to this court from the file of Addl. Judicial I Class

Magistrate' court, Amalapuram for disposal according to law.

2. This is a private complainant filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act said to have been committed by the accused.

3.The brief facts of the complainant are as follows:

On 22.6.2014 the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant for her family expenses and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the Complainant or his order on demand by execute 2 promissory note on the even date in favour of complainant. After receiving full consideration subsequently, the complainant demanded several times for repayment of due under promissory note but the accused postponing the same. The accused issued cheque bearing No.363743 dated 7.8.2016 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of pronote debt drawn on State Bank of India,

Ravulapalem. When the complainant presented the cheque for collection before his banker Indian Bank, Amalapuram for collection on 8.8.2016 and the same was returned for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. Then the accused approached to the complainant to give time for two months and granted time till 15.10.2016. The complainant again presented the same cheque through his bank Indian Bank,

Amalapuram on 24.10.2016 and the same was returned unpaid due to “Funds

Insufficient”. The accused intentionally knowingly fully well failed to arrange the amount in her account to meet the cheque amount. Then the complainant got issued legal notice dt.28.10.2016 through his counsel to the accused demanding the payment of cheque amount within 15 days. The accused intentionally avoid receiving the notice. The accused is liable for punishment under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

4.The case was taken on file under section 138 of NI Act by the Additional Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram.

5. After taking cognizance, when the accused appeared before the court copies of documents were supplied to her. The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C she denied of having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.W1 got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

7. After the evidence of the complainant side completed, the accused was examined under section 351 of BNSS Act, by putting the incriminating material to her.

The plea of the accused is one of total denial but not choosed to examine herself as witness to put forth her defence, no documents were marked. Heard the arguments on both sides.

8 Now the point for determination in this case is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

9 In order to prove the case of complainant, the complainant himself examined as P.W1 and in support of oral evidence of P.W1 the complainant filed Ex.P.1 Cheque bearing No.363743 drawn on State Bank of India, Ravulapalem for Rs.3,00,000/- issued in his favour by the accused, Ex.P.2 is cheque return memos two in number,

Ex.P.3 Office copy of Registered legal notice dt.8.7.2016 issued at his instance to the address of the accused, Ex.P.4 return cover got marked them as Ex.P.1 to P.4 respectively.

10.Initially, the complainant has to prove that there was a legally existing enforceable debt between him and accused. Subsequently the complainant has to prove that in order to discharge the existing legally enforceable debt the accused issued cheque to the complainant which was dishonoured.

11.Especially to prove the case of the complainant for the offence against accused under section 138 and 142 of NI Act. Firstly, the complaint has to establish that the accused issued the cheque for the discharge of his legally enforceable debt, the cheque has been presented in the bank within the period of 6 months from the date or which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. The payee or holder in due course of the cheque as the case may be makes a demand for the 4 payment of cheque amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of receipt of intimation by him from the bank regarding the return of cheques as un paid and the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount to the payee or as the case may be to the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days on receipt of the said notice.

12.In this case it is the contention of the accused that there is no legally enforceable debt in between complainant and accused as no proof of document, like pronote is filed by the complainant. He further contended that no statutory notice served on the accused demanding payment of cheque amount to the complainant.

13.In this case, it is the evidence of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of complaint contents. During cross-examination the complainant admitted that he did not file promissory note executed by the accused dt.22.6.2014 in his favour in the Court.

Further admitted that he has no prior personal acquaintence with accused, one

Venkateswara Rao resident of Yanam village introduced her by saying that accused wants money on interest and he did not return pronote to the accused till collection of cheque amount.

14. In order to prove the legally existing enforceable debt besides the oral evidence of PW.1, PW.1 got examined one Adapa Venkateswara rao as PW.2 and Sada

Ramanjeyulu as PW.3. Both catergorically deposed in their evidence that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 22.4.2014 to meet her family expenses. Though the counsel for the accused cross-examined PW.2 and 3 at length but he could not elicit any material to disprove the money transaction between complainant and accused, except giving suggestion to the witness that no financial transaction is took place between complainant and accused and because they are brother by courtesy and villager respectively was denied by the witness.

From the oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with evidence of PW.2 and 3 intially prove 5 that there was a pronote transaction and existing legally enforceable debt between

PW.1 and accused.

15. It is the case of the complaint in order to discharge debt due to the complainant the accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque to the complainant which drawn on

State Bank of India, Ravulapalem. The complainant filed the Ex.P.1 cheque on the face of cheque it shows that Ex.P.1 cheque issued in favour of complainant given by accused. But accused contended that he has not issued Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant, one Bharati Ratnam who is the friend of accused obtained cheque from her and gave the same to the complainant, then the complainant filed the case basing on the cheque of accused obtained from Bharati Ratnam. But the accused did not choose to examine himself or else examined said Bharati Ratnam as a witnesses to disprove the case of complainant and prove her defence that she had not issued cheque to the complainant. When the complainant proved through his evidence coupled with Ex.P.1 cheque the burden lies on the accused to rebut the contention of complaint. But the accused not choose to prove her defence through either oral evidence or documentary evidence. When the complainant presented Ex.P1 cheque in Indian Bank, Amalapuram Branch in two times for collection and when cheque went to the accused bank ie., State Bank of India, Ravulapalem Branch for collection, but the said cheque was dishonoured due to “Insufficient funds” in the account of the accused. His contention supported by the evidence of PW.4 Branch Manager, Indian

Bank, Amalapuram who categorically stated that the complainant presented the cheque on 8.8.2016 and on 24.10.2016 for the collection but in two times the cheque was not honoured due to reason “Funds Insufficient” and intimate the same to complainant through Ex.P.2 and P.3 (two return cheque memos). After receiving intimation under Ex.P.2 and P.3 the complainant got issued Ex.P.4 legal notice to the accused demanding the repayment of cheque amount, but the notice returned as “Unclaimed” for which the accused contended that no notice served on her. When 6 perusal of Ex.P.4 registered cover there is an endorsement dt.31.10.2016 of postal department that intimation served. When intimation is served to the accused it is her obligation to go and collect the registered cover from Postal Department, but without going post office she claimed that no notice served on her. When once there was a endorsement on the registered cover that intimation served, it deems that notice served on the addressee (accused). Therefore the contention of the accused no notice served on her is untenable. It is not the case of the accused that the signature on

Ex.P.1 cheque not belong to her and once she admit signature on the cheque issued by her the accused has to explain how the cheque came to the hands of complainant.

Except putting suggestion to the PW.1 that PW.1 collected the cheque from one

Bharati Ratnam who is the friend of accused which denied by the witness and no rebuttal evidence produced by the accused to disprove the contention of complaint that accused issued cheque in his favour to discharge legal enforceable debt and the same was dishonoured or prove her defence that the Ex.P.1 cheque has not issued in favour of complainant but issued to the Bharati Ratnam. Considering the evidence of

Pws.1 to 4 and Exs.P.1 to P.4 the complaint proved this case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act.

16.Therefore the complainant successfully proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

17.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under section 138 of NI

Act. Accordingly, she is convicted under section 278(2) of BNSS Act/255(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) in default of payment on fine, she has to suffer for further period of one month simple imprisonment.

Typed to my dictation by the Grade-III Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

7

When questioned the accused about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on her and heard the accused about the quantum of sentence. The accused submitted that she is retired old aged person having children. She has not having any means to lead the family request the Court to taken lenient view. Considering the submission made by the accused the court took a lenient view. Accordingly, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to a pay a fine of 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default of payment of fine. He has to suffer for further period of one month simple imprisonment. She is intimated to that she is having right of appeal and also entitled to legal aid in the appellant Court.

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: none P.W.1 dt.17.2.2023 Adapa Vemana Yogeswara Rao P.W.2 dt.20.8.2024 Adapa Venkateswara Rao P.W.3 dt.18.2.2025 Sada Ramanjaneyulu P.W.4 dt.14.10.2025 Kudupudi Krishna Kishore

Documents marked for

Prosecution Ex. P1 Cheque bearing No.363743 drawn on State Bank of India, Ravulapalem for Rs.3,00,000/- issued in his favour by the accused. Ex. P2 Cheque returned memos two in number Ex.P3 Office copy of Registered Notice dt.8.7.2016 issued at his instance to the address of the accused. Ex.P4 Return cover. Defence: Nil.

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate Amalapuram.

8

Calendar and Judgment District: East Godavari, Calendar case tried by Sri P.V.Prasada Rao, B.sc, B.Ed, B.L. L.L.M., Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Friday, the 15th day of May, 2026.

Calendar Case No. 59 of 2018

Dates of: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - offencecomplaintApprehen-Accusedcommence-close ofSentence sion ofreleasedment oftrial or accusedon bailtrial order 7.8.2016 8.3.2017 4.6.2019 -- 17.2.2023 22.12.2025 15.05.2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Explanation for delay: No delay

Name and address of the complainant: Adapa Vemana Yogeswara Rao, S/o.Bhyrava Swamy, Age 50 years, Resident of G.Agraharam, Ambajipeta Mandal.

Name and address of the accused:Meesala Akkamma, W/o.Pedda Apparao, Age 51 years, Resident of D.No.45-6-8, Ashok Nagar, Bypass Road, Rajahmundry. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Section of law: 138 of N.I Act. Plea of the accused: Not guilty Finding of the court: Guilty. Sentence or order: In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under section 138 of NI Act. Accordingly, she is convicted under section 278(2) of BNSS Act/255(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) in default of payment on fine, she has to suffer for further period of one month simple imprisonment.

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram. Fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) is paid on 15.05.2026.

Sentence of imprisonment suspended as per orders in Crl.M.P No.1125/2026 dt.15.05.2026 till 15.06.2026.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble II Addl. District and Session Judge, Amalapuram.

1 THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: AMALAPURAM Present : Sri P.V.Prasada Rao, B.sc, B.Ed, B.L. L.L.M., Special Magistrate,

Thursday the 30th day of April, 2026

Calendar Case No.425 of 2019

(Cr.No.86/2019 of Allavaram PS.)

Between:

State-Sub-Inspector of Police, Allavaram PS . …….Complainant.

And

Annamneedi Venkateswararao, S/o.Venkatarao, Age 55 years, D.Ravulapalem village, Allavaram Mandal.

……..Accused

This case coming on for final hearing before me on 28-04-2026 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State complainant and of Sri T.V.Prasada Rao Advocate for the Accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following -:: JUDGMENT ::

1.This case was transferred to this court from the file of Addl.Judicial First Class

Magistrate's court, Amalapuram for disposal according to law.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police of Allavaram Police Station filed the charge sheet against Accused for the offence under Sections 171 (E), 188 of IPC, Section 34(A) of A.P.Excise

Act and Section 123 Representation of People Act in Cr. No.86/2019 said to have been committed by the accused.

3.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

PW.1-Anyapu Rambabu is Panchayathi Raj Assistant, Engineer, Flying squad in- charge, Amalapuram-44 Constituency is the defacto complainant in this case. On 9.4.2019 morning on receipt of credible information about the illicit distribution of liquor in Devaguptham Village, Allavaram Mandal for disbursing to the voters with a view to solicit votes in the ensuing Assembly/Parliament Elections-2019, PW.1 and along with his assisted team Lws.2 and 3 (Nedunuri Lovaraju, M.S.Pundarinath), PW.2 conducted raid on a public place while the accused 2 standing beside the road with two plastic bags and found 96 bottles of Original Choice liquor, each one 180 ML worth Rs.9,600/- and 28 Bottles of Any Time Fine Whisky each one 180 ML worth Rs.1,400/-, total worth Rs.11,000/-, and seized the same from the accused. Later, he informed the same his superiors and handed over the same in the Police Station along with the accused for further necessary action, when questioned the said person about illegal possession, the said person violated the model code of conduct issued by the State Election Commission and committed the offence of Bribery with an intention to influence the voters to cast their votes in Assembly/Parliament Elections by distributing the whisky bottles to the voters as gratification. 3.1)Basing on the written report given by PW.1, PW.2/Prohibition Sub-Inspector of Police, Allavaram P.S. registered the same as a case in Cr.No.86/2019 under Section 171(E), 188 IPC and Section 34(A) of AP Excise Act and Section 123 of R.P.Act of Allavaram P.S. on 8.4.2014 at 3.00 PM and investigated into. During the course of investigation, PW.2 secured the PW.1 and his team members i.e., LW.2 and 3 in the Police Station and recorded their detailed statements and verified the case property in their presence and taken over the same along with the accused, then PW.2 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. Then PW.2 served notice under Section 41 (1) (a) Cr.PC to the accused with an instructions to appear before the Hon’ble

Magistrate, Amalapuram whenever required by the Court. Later, PW.3 prepared Letter of advice

and sent the same along with seized sample liquor to the Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition and Excise, Regional Probation and Excise Laboratory, Kakinada through SDPO, Amalapuram Sub Division, Amalapuram, the same was analyzed by the above said Chemical Examiner and opined that the sample at SL.Nos.7306/2019 and 7607/2019 are Indian made liquor and percentage of proof spirit of Hydrometer strength of Alcohol is 25.5 and 25.3 UP and on completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet. Hence the charge.

4.The case was taken on file Under Sections 171-E, 188 of IPC, Section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act and 123 of R.P.Act by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate's court, Amalapuram.

5.When the accused appeared before the court, copies of documents were supplied to him. The accused when examined later under Section 239 Cr.P.C he denied of having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.At the time of trial, the prosecution examined altogether Three witnesses.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under section 351 of B.N.S.S Act, and the incriminating material in the prosecution evidence was read over to him in telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence. Hence, Defence evidence was closed and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

3

8.As aforesaid, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 3 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 on behalf of the prosecution.

9. Now the point for determination in this case is: Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Heard both sides.

11. To prove the case of prosecution the prosecution examined Three witnesses out of 5 cited witnesses in the charge sheet, L.W.1 examined as P.W.1, LW.4 examined as P.W.2, LW.5 examined as PW.3 and got marked as Exs.P1 to P6.

12. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 3. Out of 5 witness cited in the charge sheet. Out of them Pw.1 is eye witness. PW.2 is Investigating Officer, PW.3 is

Investigating Officer in this case, APP given up Lws.2 and 3 (Nedunuri Lovaraju and Mattaparthi Sri

Pundarinath) by the prosecution.

13.Pw.1 is Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj deputed to flying squad who deposed that on 9.4.2019 on credible information he along with LW.3 Head Constable Allavaram Police Station went to Devaguptham village there they found one person holding carry box on suspicion he stopped him and verified the bags possessed by him then he found 96 sealed 180 ML bottles and 26 loose whiskey bottles each 180 ML capacity. Then he seized on the liquor bottles and took the accused into custody and produced him before Sub-Inspector of Police, Allavaram by presenting a written report. Ex.P.1 is report. Police examined him and recorded his statement. Because APP given up the evidence of LW.2 and 3, the evidence of PW.1 is not corroborated with any independent eye witnesses and accompanied witnesses who participated in the raid along with

PW.1. Even the evidence of PW.1 not revealed that the accused distributing liquor bottles to the voters in the General Elections, even PW.2 the Investigating officer supported the case of prosecution to the extent of his investigation in this case but his evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution why because the eye witness and other witnesses are not supported to the 4 case of prosecution. PW.3 is the Investigating Officer not examined any voter who received liquor bottle to support the prosecution contention that the PW.1 caught the accused while he was distributing the liquor bottles to the voters to get vote in favour of YSRC Party though investigating

Officer who received Ex.P.1 report along with contraband and accused deposed evidence supporting prosecution case but his evidence is insufficient to prove the case of prosecution unless and until the evidence of PW.1 and 2 corroborated by any independent witnesses. The prosecution utterly failed to prove its case for the above noted offence under Sections 171 (E) 188 of IPC, Section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act-1968, Section 123 of R.P Act.

14. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 171 (E), 188 of IPC, Section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act and Section 123 Representation of People Act, he is acquitted under section.271 BNSS Act/248(1) Cr.P.C, his bail bonds shall stand canceled. He is at liberty. Mos.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Grade-III Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me in open

court on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:Defence: none P.W.1: dt.04.11.2025 Anyam Rambabu P.W.2: dt.23.04.2026 B.Vinod Prohibition Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.3: dt.27.4.2026 K.Chiranjeevi Sub-Inspector of Police

Documents marked for Prosecution: Ex.P.1 dt.09.4.2019 Report of PW.1

Ex.P.2 dt. 09.4.2019 First Information issued by the Complainant against the accused Ex.P.3 dt. 08.4.2019 Rough Sketch Ex.P.4 dt. 13.4.2019 Letter of Advise Ex.P.5 dt. 16.4.2019 Letter addressed to the chemical examiner Ex.P.6 dt.22.4.2019 Analyst Report

Defence: Nil M.Os marked Nil

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

5

Calendar and Judgment

District: East Godavari Calendar case tried by Sri P.V.Prasada Rao, B.sc, B.Ed, B.L. L.L.M., Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Thursday the 30th day of April, 2026

Calendar Case No.425 of 2019

(Cr.No.86/2019 of Allavaram PS.)

Dates of: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - offencecomplaintApprehen-Accusedcommence-close ofSentence sion of released ment oftrial or accusedon bailtrial order 9.4.2019 9.4.2019 9.4.2019 9.4.2019 4.11.2025 27.4.2026 30.4.2026 on station bail - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - Explanation for delay: No delay This case was transferred to this court on the file of Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Amalapuram. Judgment pronounced on 30.4.2026

Name and address of the complainant: State Sub-Inspector of Police, Allavaram PS

Name and address of the accused: Annamneedi Venkateswararao, S/o.Venkatarao, Age 55 years, D.Ravulapalem village, Allavaram Mandal. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Section of law: 171 (E), 188 of IPC, Section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act and Section 123 Representation of People Act Plea of the accused: Not guilty. Finding of the court: Not guilty. Sentence or order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 171 (E), 188 of IPC, Section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act and Section 123 Representation of People Act, he is acquitted under section.271 BNSS Act/248(1) Cr.P.C, his bail bonds shall stand canceled. He is at liberty. Mos.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram. Copy submitted to the Hon'ble IInd Addl.District & Sessions

Judge, Amalapuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: AMALAPURAM

Present : Sri P.V.Prasada Rao, B.sc, B.Ed, B.L. L.L.M., Special Magistrate,

Thursday day the 30thday of April, 2026

Calendar Case No.265 of 2020

(Cr.No.112/2020 of Allavaram PS.)

Between:

State-Sub- Inspector of Police, Allavaram P.S. …….Complainant

And

1. Pothula Satyanarayana, S/o.Seethaiah, Age 40 years, Pothulavaripeta, Gundupudi village, Allavaram Mandal.

2. Badugu Rambabu, S/o Venkatarao, Age 42 years, Pothulavaripeta, Gundupudi village, Allavaram Mandal.

3. Pothula apparao, S/o.Kondaiah, Age 45 years, Pothulavaripeta, Gundupudi village, Allavaram Mandal.

……..Accused

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 28-4-2026 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State complainant and of Sri K.Satyanarayana Advocate for the Accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.This case was transferred to this court from the file of Addl.Judicial First Class

Magistrate's court, Amalapuram for disposal according to law.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police of Allavaram Police Station filed the charge sheet against Accused for the offence under Sections 341,353, 506 r/w 34 IPC in Cr. No.112/2020 said to have been committed by the accused.

3.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

PW.1 is the defacto-complainant in this case. On 5.5.2020 at 1.30 PW.1 is Village

Revenue Officer turned up to Police Station lodged a written report that on 5.5.2020 mid day his superiors LW.4 Deputy Tasildar and LW.5 Mandal Revenue Inspector visited Gundupudi village with a purpose of verification of the house sites situated in R.S.No.597/1B having an extent of 6.90 cents which were to be distributed under Navaratnalu scheme, after completion of the verification and when Lws.4 and 5 left the place at 1.30 PM and when the PW.1 proceeded towards the village from the House sites on his motorcycle, A.1 to A.3 wrongfully restrained PW.1 and threatened him that they will file false SC ST cases against him, and also threatened him that they will see his end 2 if he tried to distribute the above land and shouted on him by addressing him with filthy language and obstructed his legitimate duties, then he informed the same to Tahsildar, Allavaram and then lodged a written report in the Police Station.

3.1)Basing on the written report from PW.1, PW.2 registered the case in Cr.No.112/2020 under

Sections 341, 353, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Allavaram P.S. During the course of investigation PW.2 secured the witness PW.1 in the Police Station and examined him under Section 161 (1) Cr.P.C and recorded his detailed statement. During the course of investigation, PW.2 visited the scene of offence and secured the witnesses LW.2 to 5 (Make China Satyanarayana, Kombathula Kranthi

Kumar, Sanaboina Venkata Satyanarayana, Medida Durga Srinivasu) at the scene of offence at

Pothulavaripeta, Gundepudi village, Allavaram Mandal and examined them and recorded their detailed statements. On 1.3.2020 PW.2 served 41(1) Cr.P.C to the accused no.1 to 3 with instructions to appear before the Honble Court of AJFCM, Amalapuram as and when they will be summoned to answer the charge. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under sections 341,353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence the charge.

4.The case was taken on file Under Sections 341,353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, by the Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate's court, Amalapuram.

5.When the accused appeared before the court, copies of documents were supplied to them. The accused when examined later under Section 274 BNSS Act, they denied of having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. At the time of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 2 witnesses out of 6 witnesses cited in the charge sheet.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined under section 351 BNSS

Act, and the incriminating material in the prosecution evidence was read over to them in telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence. Hence, Defence evidence was closed and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

8.As aforesaid, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 and 2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 on behalf of the prosecution.

9. Now the point for determination in this case is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections 341 (wrongful restrain), 353 (Criminal force against a public servant) 506 (Criminal Intimidation) r/w 34 (common intention) of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

3

10.Heard both sides.

11.The Learned APP has argued before the Court that the prosecution through the oral evidence of Pws 1 and 2 coupled with Exs P1 to P4 proved the case against the accused no.1 for wrongful restrain and A.1 to A.3 committed sexual harassment by doing nasty things with criminal intimidation to PW.1 by all accused with common intention. He further argued that A1 to A3 are liable for punishment for the above said sections.

12.To prove the case of prosecution the prosecution examined only 2 witnesses out of 6 cited witnesses in the charge charge sheet, L.W.1 examined as P.W.1, L.W.6 examined as P.W2, and got marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. L.W2 to 5 ( Make China Satyanarayana, Kombathula Kranthikumar, Sanaboina Venkata Satyanarayana, Medida Durga Srinivasu) givenup by the APP.

13.In this case, coming to the evidence of the prosecution witness, PW.1 did not support the case of the prosecution, as It is the evidence of P.W.1 that he does not know the accused. On 5.5.2020 around 1.20 PM., while he was at layout in Gudipudi some unknown persons came on vehicle and abused him and shouted him. On the direction

MRO he presented report to the police not supported to the case of prosecution and he totally turned hostile. Though learned APP cross-examined him he could not elicit any material from him to prove alleged incident to PW.1 under cover of Ex.P.1 report.

Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 not useful to prove the case of prosecution. Though investigating officer PW.2 supported to the case of prosecution to the extent of his investigation in this case but his evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution why because the eye witness and other witnesses are not supported to the case of prosecution and the investigating officer not filed any documentary proof to say that the accused is caused hurt to PW.1. Therefore, the prosecution utterly failed to prove it’s case. The accused is entitled for acquittal.

14. In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence under Section 341, 353, 506 I.P.C. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 278 BNSS/255(1) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Grade-III Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

4

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: none

P.W.1 dt.23.4.2026 Munganda Sivarjuna Rao

P.W.2 dt.27.4.2026 K.Chiranjeevi

Documents marked for

Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 dt.07.5.2020Report of PW.1

Ex.P.2 dt.07.5.2020161 Cr.P.C.,statement of P.W.1 recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police, Allavaram P.S. Ex.P.3 dt.05.5.2020 First information report filed by the complainant against the accused. Ex.P.4 dt.05.5.2020Prepared rough sketch

Defence: nil

M.Os marked

nil

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

5

Calendar and Judgment

District: East Godavari Calendar case tried by Sri P.V.Prasada Rao, B.sc, B.Ed, B.L. L.L.M., Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Thursday day the 30thday of April, 2026

Calendar Case No.265 of 2020

(Cr.No.112/2020 of Allavaram PS.)

Dates of: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - offencecomplaintApprehen-Accusedcommence-close ofSentence sion of released ment oftrial or accusedon bailtrial order 5.5.2020 7.5.2020 1.3.2020 1.3.2020 23.4.2026 27.4.2026 30.4.2026 on station bail - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - Explanation for delay: No delay This case was transferred to the court on the file of Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Amalapuram. Judgment

pronounced on 30.04.2026.

Name and address of the complainant: State-Sub Inspector of Police, Allavaram PS

Name and address of the accused: 1. Pothula Satyanarayana, S/o.Seethaiah, Age 40 years, Pothulavaripeta, Gundupudi village, Allavaram Mandal.

2. Badugu Rambabu, S/o Venkatarao, Age 42 years, Pothulavaripeta, Gundupudi village, Allavaram Mandal.

3. Pothula apparao, S/o.Kondaiah, Age 45 years, Pothulavaripeta, Gundupudi village, Allavaram Mandal.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Section of law:341,353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Plea of the accused:Not guilty. Finding of the court:Not guilty. Sentence or order:In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence under Section 341, 353, 506 I.P.C. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 278 BNSS/255(1) Cr.P.C.

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram. Copy submitted to the Hon'ble IInd Addl.District & Sessions

Judge, Amalapuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: AMALAPURAM

Present: Sri P.V.Prasada Rao, B.sc, B.Ed, B.L. L.L.M., Special Magistrate Friday, the 15th day of May, 2026.

Calendar Case No. 899 of 2022

Between: M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Amalapuram branch, rep. by its authorized person Mr.Naredla Raju, S/o.Venkata Sesharao, Hindu, age 23 years, Legal Assistant Peruru, Amalapuram Rural Mandal. – Complainant

and

Karatam Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana Murthy, Hindu, Age 45 years, D.No.4-28, Ch.Gunnepalli, H/o.Gunnepalli, Mummidivaram Mandal.

-- Accused

This case coming on for final hearing before me on 14.5.2026 in presence Sri. D.V.V.S.Murthy

Advocate for complainant and Sri Chintapalli Ajay Kumar Advocate for Accused, the court delivered the following

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

1.This case was transferred to this court from the file of Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate' court,

Amalapuram for disposal according to law.

2. This is a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence under section138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act said to have been committed by the accused.

3.The brief facts of the complainant are as follows:

The accused approached the complainant office, entered into a loan agreement and executed relevant documents including the loan agreement bearing No.AMLPMTF 1604260007 dt.26.4.2016 and availed personal loan on 26.4.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- payable in 60 monthly installments and EMI amount is

Rs.15,625/-. As per the said agreement, the accused obtained loan from the complainant. The accused issued a cheque dt.05.2.2019 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- bearing No.601033 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad,

Mummidivaram branch in favour of the complainant towards part payment of the above said loan. The 2 complainant presented the said cheque for collection in City Union Bank, Amalapuram on 18.2.2019 But the banker returned the same with an endorsement memo on 19.2.2019 stating that “Funds Insufficient”. The complainant got issued a legal notice dt.08.3.2019 demanding the accused to pay the said amount under above cheque within 15 days. The accused received the said notice on 10.3.2019 but he kept quiet. Hence, the complaint.

4. The case was taken on file under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act by the Additional

Judaical I class Magistrate Amalapuram.

5.After taking cognizance when the accused appeared before the court, copies of documents were supplied to him. The accused when examined later under section 274 BNSS Act he denied of having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. At the time of trial, the prosecution examined only P.W.1.

7.After the evidence of the prosecution is completed, the accused was examined under Section 351 of

BNSS Act by putting the incriminating material to him. The plea of the accused is one of total denial and when called upon to enter upon his defence, the accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

8.Heard the Arguments.

9.As aforesaid, the prosecution examined only PW.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to P.6 on behalf of the prosecution. None were examined on the side of defence and no documents were marked.

10. Now the point for determination in this case is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. POINT: In order to prove the case, the complainant himself got examined as PW.1. Besides the oral evidence of PW.1, he filed the cheque, cheque returned memo, registered legal notice, Postal

Acknowledgment, Account copy, Authorization letter and got them marked as Exs.P.1 to P.6 respectively.

12. Especially to prove the case for the offence under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused issued the cheque for the discharge of the legally recoverable debt, the cheque has been presented to the Bank within the period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. The payee or holder in due 3 course, of the cheque as the case may be makes a demand for the payment of cheque amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of receipt of intimation by him from the Bank regarding the return of cheque as unpaid and the drawer of the cheque fails to make the the payment of the said amount to the payee or as the case may be to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of receipt of the said notice.

13. In this case the accused has contended that he never borrowed any amount from the complainant and he never issued Ex.P.1 cheque in favour of the complainant towards part payment of the alleged debt.

14. In the evidence of P.W.1 he stated that the accused borrowed of Rs.5,00,000/- from him under

Personal Loan . Later the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- towards part payment of the loan debt, but the said cheque was returned dishnoured due to reason “Funds Insufficient”. In this case even though in the chief examination affidavit the complainant stated that the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque towards part payment of the loan debt, coming to the cross examination, the complainant categorically admitted that he obtained Ex.P1 cheque from the accused as security for the previous debt and he also categorically stated that Ex.P1 Cheque was not issued by the accused towards part payment of the debt under the loan and the same is obtained as a security. Therefore, in this case, the evidence on record clearly revealed that Ex.P.1 cheque was not issued by the accused towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. On the other hand, the oral evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to the contents of the complaint. Once the prosecution failed to prove that Ex.P.1 cheque was issued towards repayment of legally recoverable debt, it cannot be said that the accused has committed the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act as contemplated under the Act.

Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

15. In the result,the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act.

Accordingly he is acquittal under section 278 BNSS Act/255(1) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Grade-III Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 15th day of May, 2026

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate Amalapuram.

4

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: none P.W.1 Naredla Raju

Documents marked for

Prosecution

Ex. P1 Cheque bearing No.601033, dt.05.2.2019 issued by accused in favour of Sri Ram City Union Finance Limited. Ex.P2 Cheque returned memo dt.19.2.2019 Ex.P3 Registered Legal notice dt.08.3.2019 Ex.P4 Postal Acknowledgment dt.10.3.2019 Ex.P5 Account copy Ex.P6 Authorization letter

Defence: nil

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate Amalapuram.

5

Calendar and Judgment District: East Godavari, Calendar case tried by Sri P.V.Prasada Rao, B.sc, B.Ed, B.L. L.L.M., Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Friday, the 15th day of May, 2026.

Calendar Case No. 899 of 2022

Dates of: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - offencecomplainantApprehen-Accusedcommence-close ofSentence sion ofreleasedment oftrial or accusedon bailtrial order 5.2.201922.4.201925.9.2024 –17.3.2025 13.5.2026 15.05.2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation for delay:No delay

Name and address of the complainant:M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Amalapuram branch, rep. by its authorized person Mr.Naredla Raju, S/o.Venkata Sesharao, Hindu, age 23 years, Legal Assistant Peruru, Amalapuram Rural Mandal.

Name and address of the accused:Karatam Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana Murthy, Hindu, Age 45 years, D.No.4-28, Ch.Gunnepalli, H/o.Gunnepalli, Mummidivaram Mandal. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - – --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Section of law:Under Section 138 of N.I Act.

Plea of the accused:Not guilty

Finding of the court:Not guilty.

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 278 BNSS Act/255(1) Cr.P.C.

Sd/-P.V.Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate Amalapuram.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble IInd Addl. District & Sessions

Judge, Amalapuram.