Sri Pavan Kumar Aka

1

APGU210002232022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), TENALI.

Present:-Sri Pavan Kumar Aka

Judicial Magistrate of First Class -cum-

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali.

Thursday, this the 07th day of May, 2026

S.T.C. No.12/2022

Between:

Kota Siva Prasad, S/o Subbarayudu, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Real Estate Business, R/o Nandivelugu (V), Tenali (M). … Complainant

and

Khadgaraju Sri Ramachandra Raju, S/o Durga Prasad Raju, Hindu, 50 years, Employee in Panchayat Secretary, Manduru Panchayat Office, Tsunduru (M). … Accused

This case is comingon 29-04-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.Subba Rao, Advocate for the Complainant, and of Sri K.Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the accused, and after hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

This is a complainant filed under section 190 and 200 of Criminal

Procedure Code (herein after referred as “the Code”) against the accused alleging the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (for short – ‘the Act’).

2

02.GIST OF THE COMPLAINT:

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant on 09-08-2020 for his family expenses and to that effect, he executed a promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. either to him or to his order on demand and on repeated demands, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.151761 drawn on State Bank of India,

Tsunduru on 16-12-2021 for Rs.4,00,000/- towards part payment of debt and when the said cheque was presented for collection on 21-12-2021, the said cheque was returned with a return memo with an endorsement of “funds insufficient”, upon which on 22-12-2021 the complainant got issued registered legal notice to the accused, the accused received the notice and kept quiet.

Hence, this complaint.

03.After taking cognizance of the offence U/Sec.138 of the Act against the accused as per the Act and also as per the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Re. Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act 1by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenali, summons are issued.

04.At this stage, this case has been transferred to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Guntur on equal work distribution in Dis.No.3128, dt.16-05-2025. After receiving of the same by this court, this court again issued notices through respective counsels.

05.On appearance, copies of documents are furnished U/S.207 of the

Code and thereafter the accused is examined U/S.251 Cr.P.C., and upon explaining the substance of accusation for the offence punishable u/s.138 r/w 142 of the Act, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

12021 SCC OnLine SC 325 3

06.On appearance of both parties, basing on the sworn affidavit filed along with the complaint, in view of the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court, complainant is examined as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.5 are exhibited. The accused is directed to adduce his defence evidence if any, keeping in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank

Association .v. Union of India2.

07.To rebut the presumptions, the accused himself examined as

DW.1 and also adduced the evidence of one 3rd party as DW.2 and got exhibited Exs.D.1 and D.2 and no application is even filed to conduct any cross examination of complainant.

08.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the dishonoured Cheque was issued by accused in discharge of legally enforceable and dischargeable debt and the accused committed the offence punishable u/s.138 r/w 142 of the Act or not ?

POINT:

09.SUBSTANCE OF THE EVIDENCE

To substantiate the contentions, the Complainant exhibited the

Promissory note/Ex.P.1. To substantiate as to the accused issuing the cheque, got the original cheque bearing No.151761, dt.16-12-2021 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Tsunduru/Ex.P.2 and also exhibited the cheque return memo/Ex.P.3. As to making demand for repayment of amount covered under the said dishonoured cheque, the complainant got exhibited the office copy of legal notice, dt.22-12-2021 and also got exhibited the postal acknowledgment/Ex.P.5.

2 (2014) 5 SCC 590 4

10.To rebut the presumptions, the accused adduced evidence of his own as DW.1. While giving evidence he deposed that he borrowed

Rs.4,00,000/- only from PW.1 and at that time of lending amount the complainant put his SBI ATM Card, pass book and thereby withdrew an amount of Rs.3,87,384/-. While deposing so, he got exhibited the office copy of complaint given to Tahsildar, Tsundur under acknowledgment, dt.02-06-2021/Ex.D.1 and the statement of account with his bank for the period from 01-01-2018 to 31-12-2020/Ex.D.2. At the same time, when his cross examination is perused, he stated that he had not given any report to police and visiting of police station is not mentioned in Ex.D.1. He admitted his signatures on promissory note and cheque and also admitted as to receiving of a legal notice and giving of no reply legal notice. At the same time, he again said he had not received any legal notice in this case. He denied the signature on acknowledgment, but admitted that in Ex.D.1, issuance of cheque is not complained and no action is taken by Ex.D.1. He further deposed that except Ex.D.3 he has no proof to say that the amounts were withdrawn by the complainant and he had not taken any steps for blocking of his ATM Card. Except denial of suggestion as to the contents of Ex.D.1 being false no action is taken and as he borrowed amount under promissory note in the presence of attestors and scribe, nothing more is brought on record.

11.To substantiate his contention of borrowing and issuance of promissory note, cheque and ATM card of accused by accused to the complainant, one K.Mariyadasu deposed evidence as DW.2 in his chief examination on 23-01-2026 and thereafter, having taken ample opportunities, as he had not turned up to testify his evidence as truth or otherwise, his evidence is eschewed from consideration.

5

12.Thereby, there is the evidence of documents exhibited and relied upon by the complainant and, the oral coupled with documentary evidence of the accused.

13.Before appreciating the evidences and arguments of both the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the basic ingredients of Section 138 of the Act, which are a) the accused issued the cheque on an account maintained by them with a Bank. b) The said cheque had been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability. Explanation. -

For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a “legally enforceable debt or other liability." A) The said cheque had been presented to the Bank within the period of its validity. B) The aforesaid cheque when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/ dishonoured either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to

honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that

account by an agreement made with that Bank. C) The Payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque. D) The Drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment within 15 days on the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.

14.So it is clear that the drawer of a cheque shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Act only when the aforesaid ingredients are satisfied.

15.Now, this Court would like to consider whether the legal requirement for proof of section 138 of N.I. Act have been fulfilled or not.

16.The defendant says that he borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- only and with his ATM Card, the complainant withdrawn Rs.3,78,384/-. During cross examination, the admitted evidence is that, he had not given any instructions 6 to block his ATM Card and except Ex.D.2, he got no other evidence to say that the complainant withdrawn the amounts. Considering this specific defence, when this court perused the entire material, as per Ex.P.1 promissory note, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 09-08-2020 from the complainant in the presence of attestors and scribe. Ex.P.1 shows that it is

Rs.4,00,000/-, the accused also says that it is only Rs.4,00,000/-. As Ex.P.1 is protected the presumptions of Sec.118 of the Act, which includes the presumption as to passing of consideration, it is for the accused to rebut the same either directly or impliedly pointing out the latches of the complainant.

The accused got exhibited Ex.D.1 which appears as photo copy of a report said to have been given by him against this complainant to the Tahsildar of

Tsunduru on 02-06-2021 under acknowledgment. The recitals under Ex.D.1 shows that an endorsement is made on this for enquiry and report by VRO.

The said recitals are appearing in colour green, said to be signed by the

Tahsildar on 03-06-2021. If at all any report is given to any office, at best an acknowledgment will be given as mandated, but no directions will be passed on the office copy too. But, Ex.D.1 is containing the directions of the Tahsildar in original. When it is original, how the accused got such original endorsement of as to the directions given to the VRO is the thing to be explained by him only. The accused appears to have worked as Panchayat Secretary of Valluru (V). Thereby, he will have much knowledge as to maintenance of office records. When it is so, how he obtained such endorsement on his office copy of representation is not explained. Further, the cheque in question is dated on 16-12-2021 and it was returned unpaid on 21-12-2021 as per the recitals of

Ex.P.4. Thereby, issuance of Ex.D.1 is very much prior to giving alleged date of giving of cheque in question.

17.The accused is not a layman but he is a village panchayat secretary who also gave a representation to his MRO. But, it appears that no 7 action was taken on such Ex.D.1. If at all the case of accused is true and correct, he ought to have pursue the further proceedings in Ex.D.1 and tried to take necessary legal action against the complainant, but it is not so. Moreover, though the accused got exhibited Ex.D.2 containing various transactions, the said transactions cannot be connected to the complainant as ATM Card can be used by anyone else, who are having knowledge of the secrete pin given to the customer. As such, whatever the quantum of amounts covered under

Ex.D.2, they will not come to the rescue. Further, the accused he himself admits as to his issuance of blank signed promissory note and cheque. When the accused he himself admits such issuance of instruments under his signature without much hesitation, it can be said that the presumptions under

Sec.118 and 139 of the Act will always be infavour of bearer of instrument. No doubt, at the same time, the law is clear that such presumptions are subjected to rebuttance and such rebuttance is though not beyond reasonable doubts, but is sufficient to create the preponderance of probabilities of his defence.

For the case in hand, his plea is that the complainant withdrawn more amount by using ATM and later he blocked the ATM. Even at this particular aspect, the evidence shows as self contradictory. As per the recitals pf Ex.D.1 he himself averred that he got blocked the card and whereas, in his evidence before this court he said that he had not taken any steps for blocking of his ATM card.

Here the question is not in respect of such blocking of ATM Card and its details and, it is only in respect of as to whether there existed legally enforceable debt or not. The complainant got exhibited Ex.P.1 and though the accused denied the amount thereunder, he admitted as to such execution of promissory note. As there is no contrary evidence or the evidence to suspect the case of the complainant, it can be said that there existed legally enforceable and dischargeable debt.

8

18.Needless to say that for the Cheque in question, the presumptions u/s.139 of the Act always prevails in favour of the holder of cheque unless the contrary is proved. Keeping in view of the judgment of

Rangappa .v. Mohan 3 , it is for the accused to rebut the presumptions. But at the same time, to prove contrary of such presumptions, it is the settled law that accused need not adduce any of his evidence, but can point out the latches on the part of the complainant, as was observed by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat .v. Dattatreya Hegde 4. Even under such circumstances, for the reasons discussed supra, there is nothing to suspect either the case of the complainant or the circumstances to strengthen the defence even with a ray to create any preponderance of probabilities.

19.Under such circumstances, it can safely be concluded that there existed legally dischargeable debt and as such only, the cheque in question is issued by the accused, which is said to have been returned unpaid for which the demand legal notice is issued and is received and is not complied.

20.In the result, by giving the benefit, the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable U/s.138 r/w 142 of NI Act and accordingly he is convicted U/S.255(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 07th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.

3 AIR 2010 SC 1898 4 AIR 2008 SC 1325 9 21.On appearance of accused, Judgment is pronounced. As the accused is found guilty of the offence U/Sec.138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act, opportunity is given to him with regard to the quantum of sentence by explaining the sentence prescribed for the offence U/Sec.138 r/w 142 of N.I.

Act. Accused stated that he has no wife and his children are studying and he is the sole bread winner and hence, prayed the court to take lenient view.

Thus, prayed for mercy.

22.In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in

Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagadeeshan 5 and K.Baskaran Vs. Sankaran

Vaidyan Balan 6, the accused cannot be let off with flee bite sentence. In that view of the matter and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused, this Court is not inclined to take a lenient view. The provisions of Sec.360 Cr.P.C. or the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act are not applicable to the accused.

23.In the result, as this court find the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act and accordingly, he is convicted as per Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay the compensation of Rs.5,05,400/- which is calculated @ 6% interest p.a on the cheque amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of issuance of cheque i.e. 16-12-2021 till date of judgment for the offence

U/Sec.138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act. In default of payment of compensation, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused has not undergone any period of remand to give set off under 5 (2002) 2 SCC.420 6(1999) 7 SCC.510 10

Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Accused is appraised of his right to file appeal against the calender and judgment with free legal aid.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 7th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :

PW.1 : Kota Siva Prasad

For Accused :

DW.1 : Khadgaraju Sri Ramachandra Raju DW.2 : K.Mariya Dasu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant:

Ex.P.1 : Original promissory note, dt.09-08-2020 executed by the accused in favour of complainant for Rs.5,00,000/- Ex.P.2 : Cheque bearing No.151761 issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, dt.16-12-2021. Ex.P.3 : Cheque return memo. Ex.P.4 : Office copy of legal notice got issued by the complainant to the accused, dt.22-12-2021. Ex.P.5 : Postal acknowledgment.

For Accused :

Ex.D.1 : Office copy of complainant given to Tahsildar, Tsunduru under acknowledgment dt.02-06-2021. Ex.D.2 : Statement of account of SBI, Tsunduru Branch for the period from 01-01-2018 to 31-12-2020 (Marked subject to objection as to its proof and authenticity, in terms of Bankers Book Evidence Act).

Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.

FORM No.72

District of Guntur

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM- PRINCIPAL

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), TENALI.

PRESENT: PAVAN KUMAR AKA,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), TENALI.

Thursday, this the 07th day of May, 2026

S.T.C. No.12/2022

FORM A

ComplainantKota Siva Prasad, S/o Subbarayudu, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Real Estate Business, R/o Nandivelugu (V), Tenali (M). Represented by Sri R.Subba Rao, , Advocate AccusedKhadgaraju Sri Ramachandra Raju, S/o Durga Prasad Raju, Hindu, 50 years, Employee in Panchayat Secretary, Manduru Panchayat Office, Tsunduru (M). Represented by Sri K.Koteswara Rao, Advocate

FORM B

Date of offence16-12-2021 Date of charge sheet/Complaint07-02-2022 Date of framing of charges08-07-2025 Date of commencement of evidence21-07-2025 Date of closure of evidence01-04-2026 Date of Judgment07-05-2026

Accused details

RankName ofDateDate ofOffenceWhetherSentencePeriod of of theaccusedofreleasedchargedacquittedimposedDetention accu-arreston bailwithorundergone sedconvictedduring trial for purpose of Sec.428 Cr.PC Simple Khadgaraju Sri------Imprisonment Ramachandra Rajufor a period of one year and Sec. --- compensation 138 ofConvicted NI Actof Rs.5,05,400/- IDSI for 3 months

FORM C

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

(a) Prosecution :

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS, EXPERT

WITNESS, MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH

WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS)

P.W.1Kota Siva PrasadComplainant

(b) Defence witnesses, if any :

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS, EXPERT

WITNESS, MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH

WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS)

D.W.1KhadgarajuSriAccused Ramachandra Raju D.W.1K.MariyadasuOther witness

(c) Court Witnesses, if any :

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS, EXPERT

WITNESS, MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH

WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS)

NIL

List of Material Objects : - Nil -

Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.

NB: Sentence is suspended till 06-06-2026.

Copy to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

1

APGU210011342022

THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS - CUM -

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION): TENALI.

PRESENT: PAVAN KUMAR AKA,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), TENALI.

Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No.25 of 2025

Between:

Chappidi Koteswara Rao, S/o Bhagawat Singh, aged about 60 years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.No.10-79-9, Amaravathi Plots, Chenchupet, Tenali. … Complainant

and

Vadithiya Durga Prasad Naik, S/o Vasu Naik, aged 40 years, Hindu, Catering Business, R/o H.No.1-10-6, Cheruvuvari street, Nazerpet, Tenali. … Accused

This calendar case is coming on 20.02.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Veeranjaneyulu, Advocate for complainant and of Sri T.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a complainant filed under section 190 and 200 of Criminal

Procedure Code (herein after referred as “the Code”) against the accused alleging the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (for short – ‘the Act’).

2

02.The brief averments of the complaint are that :-

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 06-01-2021 from the complainant for his family and business expenses duly executing a promissory note on the even date in favour of the complainant and on repeated demands, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.967578 drawn on State Bank of India, Ithanagar branch, Tenali for Rs.3,00,000/- on 05-05-2022 for discharge of the debt and when the said cheque was presented for collection on 09-05-2022, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement of “funds insufficient” under cheque return memo dt.10-05-2022 upon which on 02-06-2022, the complainant got issued registered legal notice to the accused, having received the same on 04-06-2022, the accused kept quiet. Hence, this complaint.

03. Cognizance is taken for the offence under Sec.138 r/w 142 of the

Act by the learned I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tenali against the accused and summons have been issued as per the guidelines passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of re-expeditious trial of cases

U/Sec.138 of NI Act1.

04.Subsequently, in pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble Principal

District Judge, Guntur in Dis.No.3128, dt.16-05-2025, the case was received

by this court on equal work distribution and summons were issued for appearance of parties.

05.On appearance of both parties, basing on the sworn affidavit filed along with the complaint, in view of the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court complainant is examined as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.5 are exhibited. The accused is directed to adduce his defence evidence if any, keeping in view of 12021 SCC Online SC 325 3 the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank

Association .v. Union of India2.

06.Thereafter, on application filed by the accused, the case was converted from STC.144/2022 to CC.25/2026. Keeping in view of such change of nature of trial, again by filing chief-examination affidavit in luie of chief-examination, the accused also adduced his evidence as DW.1, but no documentary evidence is adduced.

07.When the accused is examined U/Sec.313(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of PW.1, the accused denied the same.

08.Heard both sides.

09.Perused the record and now the point for determination is:

Whether the complainant is able to bring home the guilt of accused, for the offence punishable U/Secs.138 r/w 142 of N.I.Act ? POINT:

10.Now, it is the case of the complainant that the accused borrowed the amount under Ex.P.1 promissory note and as it remained undischarged, there existed legally enforceable debt, for which the cheque in question under

Ex.P.2 is given by the accused, which was returned unpaid under Ex.P.3 and inspite of receiving legal notice under Ex.P.4, as the accused not complied the demand made under legal notice, accused is liable for conviction. To prove the existence of debt, the complainant exhibited the original promissory note dt.06-01-2021 for Rs.2,50,000/- /Ex.P.1 and as to issuance of cheque, got exhibited the original cheque bearing No.967578 dt.05-05-2022/Ex.P.2. To 2 (2014) 5 SCC 590 4 further substantiate as to his presenting cheque for collection and it is returned unpaid, got exhibited the cheque return memo, dt.10-05-2022/Ex.P.3 for which he got issued demand legal notice on 02-06-2022 /Ex.P.4 which was said to be acknowledged by the accused under acknowledgment/Ex.P.5.

11.To determine the guilt of the accused, when the evidence let in by the parties is looked into :

12.In view of the adducing of evidence by complainant with its documentary evidence, the complainant initially proved his case as Exs.P.1 and P.2 are negotiable instruments for which the presumptions under Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act will prevail in favour of bearer of instruments which are rebuttable in nature and such rebuttance is also though not beyond reasonable doubts, but is sufficient to create preponderance of probabilities.

The accused had taken the plea of financial incapacity and as to issuance of promissory note and cheque in question in respect of a chit transaction.

13.Keeping in view of such defences, now, it is to be noted that the accused never denied that the signature on promissory note is not that of him so also the signature on the cheque and the cheque to the account standing on his name. Thereby, when the signatures on such documents are as that of the accused only, again the burden of shifting onus is on the shoulders of the accused only. Hence, whether the accused rebutted the presumptions and tried to establish his defence or not is to be verified.

14.On this particular aspect, when the cross examination of PW.1 is perused, he stated that he is having accounts with Bank of India, Tenali and he know the accused through his catering business, for the last 10 years and he has documentary evidence to say that by 06-01-2021, he got

Rs.2,50,000/- in his bank and he has not withdrawn the amount from the bank, 5 but he gave the cash available in the house and the amount in cash is with him out of his business transactions of alienation of properties and he cannot now say in which transaction he got that amount and cheque was not issued on the day of execution of promissory note and the cheque was given to him at 8-30 or 9-00 a.m. and the amount of cheque is not the amount shown in the promissory note. He also stated that the cheque is given including that interest amount and he cannot say the total interest accrued, but the cheque was given for Rs.3,00,000/- and one attestor signed on promissory note and he has no relationship with the attestor and scribe and they are brought by the accused and none were present at the time of issuance of cheque to him by the accused.

15.Before appreciating the evidences and arguments of both the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the basic ingredients of Section 138 of the Act, which are a) the accused issued the cheque on an account maintained by them with a Bank. b) The said cheque had been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability. Explanation. -

For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a “legally enforceable debt or other liability." A) The said cheque had been presented to the Bank within the period of its validity. B) The aforesaid cheque when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/ dishonoured either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to

honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that

account by an agreement made with that Bank. C) The Payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque. D) The Drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment within 15 days on the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.

6

16.So it is clear that the drawer of a cheque shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Act only when the aforesaid ingredients are satisfied.

17.Now, this Court would like to consider whether the legal requirement for proof of section 138 of the Act have been fulfilled or not.

18.Now, it is the case of the complainant that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- under promissory note and in discharge of that amount, issued a cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- and as it returned unpaid and not discharged the present complaint is filed.

19.The defendant adduced his own evidence as DW.1 duly entering into the witness box. He deposed in his chief that he never borrowed any amount from the complainant by executing a promissory note on 06-01-2021 and he never issued any cheque in respect of that promissory note and he does not know as to returning of the alleged cheque and he received legal notice in this case and as he never borrowed any amount, he never issued the cheque in question, this is a false case and no civil suit is filed against him.

During cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know the complainant and there were no cases pending against him either in this court or in any other court except this and, he received legal notice from complainant and he has not got issued any reply legal notice. He admitted that for the purpose of catering, borrowing and discharging of amounts will be there and he also stated that he is having accounts with Andhra Bank and State Bank of India and on confrontation of vakalat, promissory note and cheque in this case the witness admitted his signatures.

7

20.Now, keeping in view of the evidence adduced by the defendant, as the accused denied the execution of promissory note and issuance of cheque in question, the denial impliedly can understood the plea of forgery.

When the defence is of forgery, needless to say that it is for the person, who denies the signature as not that of him, as the signature will be within his specific knowledge, as mandated under Sec.106 of Indian Evidence Act.

Though it is so, for the reasons best known to the accused, he had not taken any steps to seek the expert opinion. When such is so, the plea of forgery remained as plea only, without there being any material to create any preponderance of probabilities, as such, it can be concluded that Ex.P.2 is the cheque issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt only.

However, for the purpose of rebutting the presumptions, it is the settled law that the accused need not adduce evidence and he can take advantage of latches in the case of the complainant. On this particular aspect, whether the accused is able to rebut the presumptions of promissory note or not, when this court perused the cross examination of PW.1, the accused posed question as to financial capacity of the complainant. However, when PW.1 evidence is perused, the amount lent is Rs.2,50,000/- which is available in his house. Except denial of suggestions as to the accused purchasing the vegetables on credit business for catering purpose and used to pay certain amounts by that time, complainant obtained the blank signed promissory note and cheque as security, nothing more is brought on record. Even considering these suggestions, having credit transactions between the accused and the complainant is brought on record. Except this, as nothing is brought on record to suspect the genuinity of Ex.P.1. It can safely be concluded that there existed legal enforceable and dischargeable debt.

21.Though the accused denied the issuance of cheque in question, at one point of time by way of suggestion he himself stated that the cheque 8 and promissory note are not issued by him, he himself admits that it is a cheque of him given as security. Basing on the above circumstances, it is also to be believed that the cheque in question is given for discharge of such legally enforceable and dischargeable debt. There by, it is to be believed that

Ex.P.2 is the cheque given by the accused only for the reasons submitted by the complainant.

22.Apart from all the above, though the accused at one point of time denied the cheque and promissory note and are not signed by him and at later point of time as he himself stated that they are instruments given by him as security for his credit purchase, the accused has not chosen to give any reply legal notice. Receipt of legal notice of complainant is admitted by the accused.

Even under such circumstances, it is for the accused to furnish his defence if any, but inspite he failed to do so.

23. Thus, basing on the above all observations and discussions, it can safely be concluded that the accused failed to rebut any of the presumptions under Sec.118 and Sec.139 of NI Act in respect of promissory note and cheque in question and, as the cheque in question was unpaid and as the accused had not chosen to pay the said amount it can be concluded that the plaintiff proved his case and the accused failed to rebut any of the presumptions. Thereby the accused is liable for conviction.

24.In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable

U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act and accordingly, he is convicted U/Sec.255 (2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.

9

25.On appearance of accused, Judgment is pronounced. As the accused is found guilty of the offence U/Sec.138 r/w 142 of the. Act, opportunity is given to him with regard to the quantum of sentence by explaining the sentence prescribed for the offence U/Sec.138 r/w 142 of the

Act. Accused stated that he has small children and hence, prayed the court to take lenient view. Thus, prayed for mercy.

26.In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in

Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagadeeshan 3 and K.Baskaran Vs. Sankaran

Vaidyan Balan 4, the accused cannot be let off with flee bite sentence. In that view of the matter and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused, this Court is not inclined to take a lenient view. The provisions of Sec.360 Cr.P.C. or the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act are not applicable to the accused.

27.In the result, as this court find the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act and accordingly, he is convicted as per Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay the compensation of Rs.3,72,650/- which is calculated @ 6% interest p.a on the cheque amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of issuance of cheque i.e. 05-05-2022 till date of judgment for the offence

U/Sec.138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act within three months. In default of payment of compensation, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused has not undergone any period of remand to give 3(2002) 2 SCC.420 4(1999) 7 SCC.510 10 set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Accused is appraised of his right to file appeal against the calender and judgment with free legal aid.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :

P.W.1 : Chappidi Koteswara Rao

For Accused :

DW.1 : Vadithiya Durga Prasad Naik

EXHIBITS MARKED

For complainant:

Ex.P.1 :Promissory note, dated 6-1-2021 executed by the accused in my favour of Rs.2,50,000/-.

Ex.P.2 :Original cheque bearing No.967578, dated 5-5-2022 of State Bank of India,Tenali for Rs.3 lakhs.

Ex.P.3 :Cheque return memo dated 10-5-2022.

Ex.P.4 :Office copy of legal notice, dated 2-6-2022 got issued by me through my counsel to the accused.

Ex.P.5 :Acknowledgment, dated 4-6-2022.

For Accused :

-Nil-

Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.

FORM No.72

District of Guntur

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM- PRINCIPAL

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), TENALI.

PRESENT: PAVAN KUMAR AKA,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), TENALI.

Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No.25 of 2025

FORM A

ComplainantChappidi Koteswara Rao, S/o Bhagawat Singh, aged about 60 years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.No.10-79-9, Amaravathi Plots, Chenchupet, Tenali. Represented by Sri B.Veeranjaneyulu, Advocate AccusedVadithiya Durga Prasad Naik, S/o Vasu Naik, aged 40 years, Hindu, Catering Business, R/o H.No.1-10-6, Cheruvuvari street, Nazerpet, Tenali. Represented by Sri T.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate

FORM B

Date of offence05-05-2022 Date of charge sheet/Complaint13-07-2022 Date of framing of charges24-07-2025 Date of commencement of evidence19-08-2025 Date of closure of evidence27-04-2026 Date of Judgment18-05-2026

Accused details

RankName ofDateDate ofOffenceWhetherSentencePeriod of of theaccusedofreleasedchargedacquittedimposedDetention accu-arreston bailwithorundergone sedconvictedduring trial for purpose of Sec.428 Cr.PC Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and

1.Vadithiya------Compensation Sec. 138 Durga PrasadConvictedof-Nil- of NI Act NaikRs.3,72,650/- to complainant within 3 months IDSI for 3 months

FORM C

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

(a) Prosecution :

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,

EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL WITNESS,

PANCH WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS)

P.W.1Chappidi Koteswara RaoComplainant

(b) Defence witnesses, if any :

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,

EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL WITNESS,

PANCH WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS)

DW.1Vadithiya Durga PrasadAccused Naik

(c) Court Witnesses, if any :

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,

EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL WITNESS,

PANCH WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS)

NIL

List of Material Objects : - Nil -

Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI. NB: Sentence is suspended till 18-06-2026.

Copy to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

1

APGU210003172023

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS - CUM -

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : TENALI.

PRESENT: Sri Pavan Kumar Aka,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class -cum- Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali.

Thursday, this the 7th day of May, 2026

S.T.C. No.59/2023

Between:

Battu Jaya Lakshmi @ Vijayalakshmi, W/o Late Satyannarayana, aged 41 years, Hindu, House Wife, R/o H.No.24-1-1/6-A, Gollapalem Road, Chinaravuru Thota, Tenali. … Complainant

and

Kurapati Raghu Ramaiah, S/o Kotilingeswara Rao, aged 55 years, Hindu, Business, ZP High School, Jamindargari House, Ilavaram, Bhattiprole (M). … Accused

This case is comingon 29-04-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Complainant, and of Sri K.Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the accused, and after hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

This is a complainant filed under section 190 and 200 of Criminal Procedure

Code (herein after referred as “the Code”) against the accused alleging the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short – ‘the Act’).

2

GIST OF THE COMPLAINT:

02.The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from Complainant on 23-09-2021 for his business purpose duly executing a promissory note in favour of complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the complainant or to her order on demand and on repeated requests for repayment, he issued a cheque bearing No.003848 of Bank of Baroda, Repalle Branch for

Rs.5,00,000/- on 16-12-2022 and when the same is presented for collection on 16-12-2022 through Canara Bank, Tenali by complainant, it is returned unpaid with and endorsement of “funds insufficient” on 17-12-2022 and thereupon, the complainant got issued legal notice on 06-01-2023 and the accused received the said notice and got issued reply legal notice with false allegations, hence, this complaint.

03.After taking cognizance of the offence U/Sec.138 of the Act against the accused as per the Act and also as per the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Re. Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act 1by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenali, summons are issued.

04.At this stage, this case has been transferred to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Guntur on equal work distribution in

Dis.No.3128, dt.16-05-2025. After receiving of the same by this court, this court again issued notices through respective counsels.

05.On appearance, copies of documents are furnished U/s.207 of the

Code and thereafter, the accused is examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C., and upon explaining the substance of accusation for the offence punishable u/s.138 r/w 142 of the Act, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.On appearance of both parties, basing on the sworn affidavit filed along with the complaint, in view of the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court, 1.2021 SCC OnLine SC 325 3 complainant is examined as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.6 are exhibited. The accused is directed to adduce his defence evidence if any, keeping in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association .v. Union of India2.

07.To rebut the presumptions, the accused himself examined as DW.1 in chief and later his evidence was eschewed and no application is even filed to conduct any cross examination of complainant.

08.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the dishonoured Cheque was issued by accused in discharge of legally enforceable and dischargeable debt and the accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 r/w 142 of the Act or not ?

POINT:

09.To substantiate the contentions, the complainant got exhibited the original promissory note, dt.23-09-2021/Ex.P.1 and as to the accused issuing the cheque, got exhibited the original cheque bearing no.003848 for Rs.5,00,000/-, dt.16-12-2022/Ex.P.2. The return of cheque unpaid is brought on record through the cheque return memo, dt.17-12-2022/ Ex.P.3. Demanding payment of amounts of Ex.P.2, the complainant got issued demand legal notice to the accused dt.06-01-2023 /Ex.P.4 along with postal receipt. Further to say as to receipt of legal notice by the accused, he also got exhibited the track consignment/Ex.P.6 and also exhibited the reply legal notice given by the accused/Ex.P.5.

10.Before appreciating the evidences and arguments of both the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the basic ingredients of Section 138 of the Act, which are a) the accused issued the cheque on an account maintained by them with a Bank. b) The said cheque had been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a “legally enforceable debt or other liability." A) The 2 (2014) 5 SCC 590 4 said cheque had been presented to the Bank within the period of its validity. B) The aforesaid cheque when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/ dishonoured either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that Bank. C) The Payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque. D) The

Drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment within 15 days on the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.

11.So it is clear that the drawer of a cheque shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Act only when the aforesaid ingredients are satisfied

12.To substantiate his case, the accused examined himself as DW.1 in chief and subsequently, his evidence was eschewed. Now, this Court would like to consider whether the legal requirement for proof of section 138 of N.I. Act have been fulfilled or not. It is nowhere denied by the accused that the cheque bearing

Nos.003848, never belongs to the account maintained by them with Bank of

Baroda, Repalle . The said cheque has been presented to the bank within the period of its validity from the date of cheque dt.16-12-2022. After presentation for encashment by the complainant, the said cheque was returned unpaid / dishonoured for the reason of “funds insufficient ” vide cheque return memo dt.17-12-2022. Thereafter, the complainant got issued demand legal notice, dt.06-01-2023 i.e., within 30 days from the date of receipt of information by her. The said legal notice was received under track consginment/Ex.P.6. The evidence of the complainant remained unchallenged on any aspect.

13.Needless to say that for the promissory note and the cheque in question, the presumptions U/Sec.118 and 139 of the Act always prevails in favour 5 of the holder of instruments unless the contrary is proved. Keeping in view of the judgment of Rangappa .v. Mohan 3 , it is for the accused to rebut the presumptions.

But at the same time, to prove contrary of such presumptions, it is the settled law that accused need not adduce any of his evidence, but can point out the latches on the part of the complainant, as was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat .v. Dattatreya Hegde 4. But, there is neither the evidence of accused of his own or through any other witness nor cross examined the complainant, even to suspect the case of complainant. As such both the negotiable instruments in this case i.e. Exs.P.1 and P.2 remained unchallenged.

14.Under such circumstances, as the complainant is neither cross examined, nor the accused has chosen to enter into witness box either of his own or through any witness and not even exhibited any documents on his behalf to rebut the presumptions, it can safely be concluded that there existed legally dischargeable debt and as such only, the cheque in question is issued by the accused, which is said to have been returned unpaid for which the demand legal notice is issued and is received and is not complied and thereby, it can be concluded that the complainant is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 r/w 142 of NI Act. Accordingly, this point is answered.

15.In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable

U/Sec.138 r/w 142 of NI Act and accordingly he is convicted U/Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 7th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.

3AIR 2010 SC 1898 4AIR 2008 SC 1325 6

16.On appearance of accused, Judgment is pronounced. As the accused is found guilty of the offence U/Sec.138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act, opportunity is given to him with regard to the quantum of sentence by explaining the sentence prescribed for the offence U/Sec.138 r/w 142 of N.I.

Act. Accused stated that he is suffering from ill-health and hence, prayed the court to take lenient view. Thus, prayed for mercy.

17.In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in

Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagadeeshan 5 and K.Baskaran Vs. Sankaran

Vaidyan Balan 6, the accused cannot be let off with flee bite sentence. In that view of the matter and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused, this Court is not inclined to take a lenient view. The provisions of Sec.360 Cr.P.C. or the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act are not applicable to the accused.

18.In the result, as this court find the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act and accordingly, he is convicted as per Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay the compensation of Rs.6,01,750/- which is calculated @ 6% interest p.a on the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of issuance of cheque i.e. 16-12-2022 till date of judgment for the offence

U/Sec.138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act. In default of payment of compensation, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused has not undergone any period of remand to give set off under 5 (2002) 2 SCC.420 6(1999) 7 SCC.510 7

Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Accused is appraised of his right to file appeal against the calender and judgment with free legal aid.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 7th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant :

PW.1 : Battu Jaya Lakshmi @ Vijayalakshmi

For accused :

DW.1 : Kurapati Raghu Ramaiah (Eschewed)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant:

Ex.P.1 : Original promissory note, dt.23-09-2021 executed by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.5,00,000/-. Ex.P.2 : Cheque bearing No.003848 for Rs.5,00,000/- issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, dt.16-12-2022. Ex.P.3 : Cheque return memo, dt.17-12-2022. Ex.P.4 : Office copy of registered legal notice got issued by the complainant to the accused, dt.06-01-2023. Ex.P.5 : Reply legal notice dt.09-02-2023 Ex.P.6 : Track consignment.

For Accused :

-Nil-

Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.

FORM No.72

District of Guntur

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS - CUM -

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : TENALI.

PRESENT: Sri Pavan Kumar Aka,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class -cum- Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali.

Thursday, this the 7th day of May, 2026

S.T.C. No.59/2023

FORM A

ComplainantBattu Jaya Lakshmi @ Vijayalakshmi, W/o Late Satyannarayana, aged 41 years, Hindu, House Wife, R/o H.No.24-1-1/6-A, Gollapalem Road, Chinaravuru Thota, Tenali. Represented by Sri T.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate AccusedKurapati Raghu Ramaiah, S/o Kotilingeswara Rao, aged 55 years, Hindu, Business, ZP High School, Jamindargari House, Ilavaram, Bhattiprole (M). Represented by Sri K.Koteswara Rao, Advocate

FORM B

Date of offence16-12-2022 Date of charge sheet/Complaint23-02-2023 Date of framing of charges01-08-2025 Date of commencement of evidence02-09-2025 Date of closure of evidence20-04-2026 Date of Judgment07-05-2026

Accused details

RankName ofDateDate ofOffenceWhetherSentencePeriod of of theaccusedofreleasedchargedacquittedimposedDetention accu-arreston bailwithorundergone sedconvictedduring trial for purpose of Sec.428 Cr.PC Simple Imprisonment for a period of Kurapati Raghu one year and Ramaiah------Sec. 138compensation Convicted--- of NI Actof Rs.6,01,750/- IDSI for 3 months.

FORM C

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

(a) Prosecution :

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,

EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL WITNESS,

PANCH WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS)

PW.1Battu Jaya Lakshmi @Complainant Vijayalakshmi

(b) Defence witnesses, if any :

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,

EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL WITNESS,

PANCH WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS)

DW.1 Kurapati Raghu RamaiahAccused (Eschewed)

(c) Court Witnesses, if any :

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,

EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL WITNESS,

PANCH WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS)

NIL

List of Material Objects : - Nil -

Sentence is suspended till : 06-06-2026

Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.

Copy to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

PONNUR.

PRESENT: SRI PAVAN KUMAR AKA,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.

FAC PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), PONNUR.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 14 th DAY OF MAY, 2025

O.S.No.16/2025

Between:

Bade Raja Sekharam, S/o Late Bade Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Employee, R/o Door No.1-1-33/1, Telagapalem Ponnur Town and Mandal, Guntur District. … Plaintiff

and

Alumolu Ramesh Reddy, S/o Alumolu Siva Reddy, Hindu, aged about 46 years, Business, C/o Vijayalakshmi Tiles, Marbles and Granites, Tenali Road, Cherukupalli Village and Mandal, Bapatla District. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 09.05.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Eresu and Smt D.Nasaramma, Advocates for plaintiff and defendant remained ex-parte on 28.04.2025, upon hearing learned counsel for plaintiff, upon perusing the material available on record and upon consideration to this day this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for recovery of money based on a promissory note, praying the Court to pass a decree for an amount of Rs.4,44,400/-.

2)The brief averments in the plaint are that:

The defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20/12/2022 for his family expenses purpose and evidencing the said borrowal and acknowledging his subsisting liability, the defendant on the same day i.e., 20/12/2022 executed demand 2 promissory note in his own hand writing in the presence of attestors in favour of the plaintiff at Ponnur, undertaking to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand at Chinalingayapalem village, Kakumanu Mandal, Guntur District. Subsequently, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through his mediators, the defendant did not choose to repay the said amount of the above suit promissory notes debt and on the other hand he is attempting to leave the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court after alienating his entire properties so as to avoid the debt of the plaintiff. Under the above circumstances the plaintiff got issued registered notice to the defendant on 21.07.2023 calling upon him to repay the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest as agreed upon and the same was refused by the defendant on 22.07.2023. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3)Having perusal of the material on record, the Court registered the said case and refused to receive summons to the defendant and the same was served on him. The defendant called absent, no representation on his behalf. Hence, the defendant was set exparte on 28/04/2025. In the exparte evidence, the plaintiff himself examined as PWs.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.3 on his behalf.

4)Heard. Perused the Record.

5)Now the point germane for determination is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for”?

POINT:- 3

6)To prove his contentions, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and

P.W.2 by filing his chief-examination affidavit and reiterated the contents of plaint, in verbatim and further PW.1 and PW.2 and got exhibited Exs.A.1 to

A.3 on his behalf. As per the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 original demand promissory note, it made clear that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff. As per the evidence of PW.1,

P.W.1 demanded for repayment of debt, but the amount was not paid by the defendant. To prove the contentions of his demand for repayment from the defendant, the plaintiff also got exhibited the office copy of registered notice, dt.21/07/2023 along with postal receipt/Ex.A2 and the said notice was returned by the defendant under Ex.A3/refused registered notice, dt.22/07/2023. P.W.2, who is the scribe of Ex.A1 also supported the version of P.W.1 regarding Ex.A1 transaction. The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged, hence, from the unchallenged testimony of PW.1 coupled with

Exs.A.1 to A.3, this Court holds that the plaintiff has proved the suit claim and as such, the suit of the plaintiff is entitled to be decreed and thus, this point is answered accordingly by invoking the presumptions under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

7)In this case, the defendant remained exparte and he did not deny or contest the suit claim. He did not rebut the presumption against him.

In the circumstances, the suit is entitled to be decreed.

8)Since the parties agreed for payment of interest at 24% per annum as per the body of contents in Ex.A.1, this court is inclined to award the same interest towards pendente lite interest. In this case the rate of interest was calculated from the date of suit transaction at the rate of 24% per annum. Such rate is believable because it is agreed rate of interest as per the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. However 4 granting of such rate of interest for pendente lite period is not granted and granting of 12% p.a., is opined by this Court as just and proper.

9)In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.4,44,400/- and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the suit till the date of decree and thenceforth at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on the principal sum Rs.3,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 14th day of May, 2025.

Sd/- PAVAN KUMAR AKA

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.

FAC PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PONNUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the plaintiff: For the defendant:

PW.1 : Bade Raja Sekharam Ex-parte PW.2 : Korukonda Rama Krishna

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A.1:Original demand promissory note, dt.20.12.2022 got executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/-.

Ex.A.2:Office copy of registered notice along with postal receipt, dt.21.07.2023.

Ex.A.3:Refused registered notice, dt.22.07.2023. On behalf of defendant:

-Nil- Sd/- PAVAN KUMAR AKA

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), TENALI.

FAC PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PONNUR.

5

O.S.No.62/2025Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Page No.1 Judgment, dt.01-05-2026Court, Tenali.

APGU210001202025

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION): TENALI.

PRESENT: SRI PAVAN KUMAR AKA,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 1 st DAY OF MAY, 2026

O.S.No.62/2025

Between:

Peddi Ratna Kumari, W/o Hyma Rao, aged about 46 years, R/o Near Dattatreya Temple, Chinaravuru Thota, Tenali (M). … Plaintiff

and

Vemula Vimala, W/o Raj Kumar, aged 33 years, Business, R/o D.No.21-6-2, Near Devi Gudi, Ramalingeswara pet, Tenali. … Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 22-04-2026 in the presence of Sri S.B.Nikhil, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant remained exparte, upon hearing learned counsel for plaintiff, upon perusing the material available on record and upon consideration to this day this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for recovery of money based on a promissory note, praying the Court to pass a decree for an amount of Rs.4,80,400/-.

2)The brief averments in the plaint are that:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 05-07-2022 from the plaintiff for her family expenses and executed a promissory note on the even date in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay

O.S.No.62/2025Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Page No.2 Judgment, dt.01-05-2026Court, Tenali.

the same together with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. Later, on repeated demands, the defendant issued a cheque for Rs.4,50,000/-, which was dishonoured and subsequently inspite of issued legal notice on 07-01-2025, the defendant did not choose to repay the debt and thereby, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3)Having perusal of the material on record, the Court registered the said case and issued summons to the defendant and the same was served on her. The defendant called absent, no representation on her behalf. Hence, the defendant was set exparte on 06-04-2026. In the exparte evidence, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and got exhibited Exs.A.1 and A.2 on her behalf.

4)Heard. Perused the Record.

5)Now the point germane for determination is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for” ?

POINT:-

6)To prove her contentions, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 by filing her chief-examination affidavit and reiterated the contents of plaint, in verbatim and further PW.1 got exhibited Exs.A.1 and A.2 on her behalf. As per the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 promissory note, it made clear that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff. As per the evidence of PW.1, on demand, the defendant issued a cheque for

Rs.4,50,000/-, but the said cheque was dishonoured and when PW.1 demanded for repayment of debt, but the amount was not paid by the defendant. To prove the contentions of her demand for repayment from the defendant, the plaintiff also got exhibited the office copy of legal notice,

O.S.No.62/2025Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Page No.3 Judgment, dt.01-05-2026Court, Tenali.

dt.07-01-2025/Ex.A.2. The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged, hence, from the unchallenged testimony of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2, this

Court holds that the plaintiff has proved the suit claim and as such, the suit of the plaintiff is entitled to be decreed and thus, this point is answered accordingly by invoking the presumptions under Section 118 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act.

7)In this case, the defendant remained exparte and she did not deny or contest the suit claim. She did not rebut the presumption against her.

In the circumstances, the suit is entitled to be decreed.

8)Since the parties agreed for payment of interest at 24% per annum as per the body of contents in Ex.A.1, this court is inclined to award the same interest towards pendente lite interest. In this case the rate of interest was calculated from the date of suit transaction at the rate of 24% per annum.

Such rate is believable because it is agreed rate of interest as per the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. However, this court opines that granting of 12% p.a., during pendente lite period is just and proper.

9)In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.4,80,400/-and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thenceforth at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on the principal sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 1st day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.

O.S.No.62/2025Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Page No.4 Judgment, dt.01-05-2026Court, Tenali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the plaintiff:

PW.1 : Peddi Ratna Kumari

For the defendant:

- None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : Original suit promissory note, dt.05-07-2022 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/-.

Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice, dt.07-01-2025 got issued by the plaintiff through his counsel to the defendant.

On behalf of defendant:

-Nil-

Sd/- Pavan Kumar Aka

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

TENALI.