1
CC. No.487 of 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, AT MEDCHAL
PRESENT: Ms. R. Lavanya, VIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Medchal.
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2025
C.C.No. 487 of 2016
Between : B.Suryanarayana, S/o.Appadu Aged about 35 years, Occ: Private Employee R/o.Venkatramnagar Colony, Suraram X Roads I.D.A. Jeedimetla, Hyderabad – 500 055.
…..Complainant
And
1. P.Venkatramana,S/o.Satyamnaidu Aged abiyt 36 years, Occ: Pvt Employee
2. P.Lalitha Kumari, W/o.P.Venkatramana Aged about 30 years, Occ: Housewife
Both are R/o.H.No. 4-84, Near Venugopala Swamy Temple Prashanthinagar Colony, Quthbullapur Mandal, Municipality R.R. District.
….. Accused
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Burma Chakrapani for the complainant and Sri P. Subba Rao, counsel for accused no.1 and 2 and upon perusal of the entire material on record, on hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
::J U D G M E N T::
1. The complainant has filed this complaint under section 200 of code of criminal procedure read with section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against accused alleging that they have committed the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act.
2
CC. No.487 of 2016
2.Brief averments of the complaint are as follows:-
The complainant and accused are known to each other. The accused were in the habit of conducting chits business under the name and style of Latha Chits and Finance and being the acquaintance of accused, the complainant introduced some of the subscribers to the accused viz., Ravikumar, Jhansi, Ananthaiah, Srinivas, Rajeshwari, Dattu, Bhanu and
Sriramulu etc., and few months thereafter, the accused started cheating the subscribers without paying the bidding amount to some of the subscribers, whom he had introduced. It is further submitted that as the unpaid bidders who were after succeeding in the bid have forced the complainant for introduction to the accused, then due to close acquaintance at the request of accused, the complainant agreed to lend an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs.
fifteen lakhs only) to the accused. It is further submitted that initially the complainant lent an amount of Rs.2 lakhs on 10-5-2010 for which the accused issued a receipt to the complainant and later the complainant lent an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rs. Eleven lakhs only) by way of hand loan on 30-6-2010 for which the accused had had issued cheque bearing No.942917 dt. 23-6-2012 towards discharge of debt.
3.When the said cheque was presented in the bank for encashment it was dishonoured with return memo dated 03-8-2012 for the reason “Funds Insufficient”.
4.Upon which, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused dated 14-8-2012 and as the acknowledgment of the legal notice was not returned, he complained to the postal department. Hence, the complaint.
5.The case was taken cognizance for the offence u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
6.On appearance of accused, the copies of documents were furnished to accused as required u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. A1 and A2 were examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. by explaining the 3
CC. No.487 of 2016
accusation basing on the contents of complaint. A1 and A2 denied the same, Pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.To substantiate the allegations mentioned in the complaint the complainant examined himself as Pw1 and marked Exs.P1 to P17 and also got examined Bandi Venkata
Satyanarayana Reddy as PW.2. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material available in the evidence adduced on behalf of complainant was explained to A1 and A2, they denied the same and reported no defence.
8.The learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the accused No.1 and 2 having admitted their signatures on impugned cheque vide Ex.P1, failed to rebut the legal presumption available in favour of complainant u/Sec.139 of N.I.Act as such A1 and A2 are liable for conviction u/Sec.138 of N.I.Act and further he urged to direct the accused to repay the double the amount of the cheque to the complainant U/Sec.357 (3) Cr.P.C.
9.Whereas the learned counsel for accused has submitted that accused have successfully established their defence and also rebutted the legal presumption available in favour of complainant. Hence, the counsel for accused pleaded to acquit the accused.
10.Basing on the averments of the complaint and arguments put forth by the respective counsels for the complainant and accused, the following points emerges for determination are:-
1. Whether the complainant has brought home the guilt of the accused for the
offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?
2. To what relief ?
4
CC. No.487 of 2016
Point No.1:-
11.The Complainant has filed this complaint alleging that the accused has committed offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. The complainant pleads and asserts that, towards discharge of their liability A1 and A2 have jointly issued the cheque question for
Rs.11,00,000/-. He has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker. The said cheque was returned unpaid with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter he got issued demand notice within time stipulated time calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered under cheque. Despite of service of notice, the accused have not paid the amount within 10 days(instead of 15 days), which gave raise to cause of action to file this complaint.
12.The submissions made on behalf of both the parties have been considered and the entire record of the case has been thoroughly perused. The only consideration before this
Court is to determine as to whether the accused is guilty of committing an offence under
Sec.138 of the N.I. Act, for which the essential ingredients are as follows:- (1) The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker; (2) The cheque drawn was for payment of money to another person from out of that account in discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability; (3) On presentation of the cheque, it is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank; (4) The cheque was presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (5) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (6) The drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment 5
CC. No.487 of 2016
of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course, within fifteen days of the receipt of said notice.
13.To substantiate his case, the complainant has stepped into witness box and examined himself as PW.1 and one Satyananarayana Reddy as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P-1 to 17.
PW1 has reiterated the contents of the complaint in his evidence affidavit about lending of an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- to the accused and as part payment, accused have issued three cheques for Rs.1,00,000/- each bearing Nos.942902, cheque bearing No.942903
dt. 15-12-2011 and cheque bearing No. 942904 dt. 21-11-2011 respectively and when those
cheques were presented they were dishonoured for funds insufficient. Thereafter, he stated about the issuance of cheque in question by the accused towards refund of aforesaid loan amount and its dishonour for funds Insufficient, issuance of legal notice to the accused calling upon him to pay the amount covered under cheque and his failure to comply the same.
14. In this scenario, let me scrutinize the documents relied by complainant in order to examine the compliance of statutory requirements envisaged under section 138 of N.I. Act.
Ex.P.1 is cheque bearing No.942917 dated 23-6-2012, the said cheque was returned unpaid with an endorsement "funds insufficient" as per Ex.P.2 is bank receipt, Ex.P3 is cheque return memo dated 03-8-2012, Ex.P.4 is Legal Notice dated 14-8-2012 under which the complainant has demanded the payment of cheque amount, Ex.P.5 and P6 are Postal
Receipts, Ex.P.7 is Letter addressed to the Manager, Postal Department, dt. 29-8-2012,
Ex.P.8 is cheque bearing No.942902, dt. 15-12-2011, Ex.P.9 is cheque return memo dt. 17- 12-2011, Ex.P10 is cheque bearing No.942903, dt. 15-12-2011, Ex.P11 is cheque return memo dated 17-12-2011, Ex.P12 is cheque bearing No. 942904, dt. 21-11-2011, Ex.P13 is cheque return memo dt. 30-12-2011, Ex.P14 chit receipts issued in the name of Rajeshwari,
Ex.P15 chit receipts issued in the name of Bhanu, Ex.P16 chit receipts issued in the name 6
CC. No.487 of 2016
of Dattu and Ex.P17 is chit receipts issued in the name of Sriramulu. During cross- examination, he has stated that he lent the cheque amount to the accused in the year, 2010 in the presence of his friends K. Srinivas and S. Ravi Kumar.
15.PW.2 Bandi Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy, reiterated the contents of his chief affidavit. During cross-examination, he has admitted that he came to know the facts of the case, through PW.1. If a witness states that he heard from the complainant that the accused owed the complainant, money, this would be considered hearsay evidence and would not be admissible. The complainant would need to provide direct evidence like a loan agreement or a receipt to prove the debt. Hence, the evidence of PW.2 is of no help to the case of PW.1.
16. Thus, the evidence adduced by the complainant coupled with the fact that the accused has not denied his signatures on Ex.P1, it can be held that the complainant is entitled for the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the complainant relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble High court of Andhra
Pradesh in the case of D. Atchyutha Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2) in
N.Narsinga Rao Vs.Srinivasa Chary Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2007, 3) Pittala
Subramanyam Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Crl.P.No.1185 of 2007, 4) Triyambak S.
Hegde Vs. Sripad reported in Criminal Appeal No. 849850 of 2011 wherein it was held that
Presumption under sec.118 of NI Act is rebuttable presumption unless contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the cheque had been made or drawn for consideration and under Sec.139 of the Act, the court has to presume unless contrary is proved, that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for discharge, in whole or part of a debt or liability – burden is on the accused to prove that there is no subsisting liability as on the date of 7
CC. No.487 of 2016
issuing of cheque and proof must be sufficient to rebut the presumption under Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act.
17.The learned counsel for the complainant also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble
High court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Munikrishnaiah Vs.C.Janakirama Naidu reported in LAWS (APH) 2004 10 106 (Criminal Appeal No. 1418 of 1997)
Wherein it was held that the burden to establish that the dishonoured cheque was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt or liability is on the first respondent, who is the drawer of the dishonoured cheque, but not on the appellant, who is the payee.
18.The accused while cross examining the PW.1 at the outset have denied the alleged loan transaction held between them and the complainant and the issuance of cheque towards discharge of alleged loan amount. The accused further seriously disputed the financial status of the complainant to lend sum of Rs.11,00,000/-. The accused further disputed the due service of statutory notice and thereby contended to dismiss the complaint and to acquit them from the charges.
19.It is for the accused to rebut these presumptions. In order to rebut the same, the accused has not adduced any evidence – either oral or documentary on his behalf. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused need not enter into witness box but he can rebut the evidence by way of cross-examination of witnesses. This court agrees with this contention of the accused as presumptions under the
Act arise only if the execution of the document is proved as true. Here, it is the case of complainant that Ex.P1 is issued to repay the hand loan obtained by the accused from the complainant. The defence of the accused is that they never borrowed any amount from the complainant, never issued Ex.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant. The accused 8
CC. No.487 of 2016
seriously disputed about the lending of cheque amount. In view of the stand taken by the accused, the burden is on the complainant to establish that he lent Rs.11,00,000/- on 30-6- 2010 and the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque in discharge of legally enforceable debt.
20.It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant lent an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- on 30-6-2010 to the accused to meet his personal necessities. But the accused denied the very borrowing of money from the complaint, in such case, it is for the accused to explain under what circumstances and for what purpose Ex.P1 cheque was issued. But the cross- examination of PW.1 shows that Ex.P1 cheque was not issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. Even in the examination under Sec.251 and 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the subsisting legally enforceable debt between them and the complainant, in such case, the presumption under section 139 of NI Act is in favour of drawee, the accused has to rebut such presumption either by adducing independent evidence or by eliciting something in the cross-examination of PW.1.
21.During cross-examination, it is admitted by PW1, that no document is executed at the time of lending amount to the accused. The amount lent, as alleged, is Rs.11,00,000/-.
Let us come to the standard of life, the complainant is leading. He is drawing only
Rs.22,000/- per month and around Rs.4,000/- per month from leasing of his agricultural land. He has a family consisting of two children and wife, he has to maintain and run the family. An amount of Rs.22,000/- per month is hardly sufficient to meet the family expenses and also to provide education to the children. In the instant case, no acceptable evidence is placed before the court to show the capacity of the complainant to lend the amount. Further, the cheque amount was not drawn from any bank. He has stated that he kept the cheque amount in the house. Such keeping of huge amount is against the conduct of a sane person.
9
CC. No.487 of 2016
22.The complainant at the stage of evidence has come forward with another version stating that the accused prior to issuing of present cheque/Ex.P1 issued three other cheques and when the said cheques were presented they were dishonoured and thereupon, on the insistence of the complainant, the accused issued the present cheque which is Ex.P1.
23. The conduct of the complainant is that he is coming forward with improved version at the time of evidence. At the time of deposing evidence, he has come forward with a version that the accused had earlier issued three cheques i.e. Ex.P8, P10 and P12 cheques.
Nothing prevented the complainant stating the said facts either in the statutory notice or in the complaint. It is only at the stage of evidence he has come forward with a version that the accused had earlier issued three cheques i.e. Ex.P8, P10 and P12 cheques, which cannot be accepted. When we peruse Ex.P8 and P10 cheques, they were not issued in the name of the complainant instead they were issued in the name of one K. Srinivas who have nothing to do with the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said cheques were issued in favour of the complainant. When Ex.P8, P10 cheques were issued in the name of
K. Srinivas, how the complainant could secure those cheques is not properly explained in the evidence of PW.1. Even assuming for a moment, that the accused issued those cheques in favour of K. Srinivas, no such Srinivas was examined to prove that the accused issuing such cheques and said cheques getting bounced. Ex.P8 and P10 cheques cannot be looked into for any purpose. What is the nexus between the complainant and the said
Srinivas in relation to Ex.P8 and P10 is not brought before the court. Therefore, Ex.P8 and
P10 are of no use to advance the case of the complainant.
24.The complainant in support of his case, sought to produce Ex.P14 to P17 alleged to have been issued by the accused in names of chit subscribers. The said receipts are not issued in the name of the complainant. They are issued in the names of Rajeshwari, Bhanu,
Dattu and Sriramulu. None of the persons in whose names such receipts are issued are 10
CC. No.487 of 2016
examined before this court to prove that the accused have issued such receipts. We do not find any signature or initial said to be of the accused on Ex.P14 to P17. In the absence of the same, it is impossible for this court to connect the accused with the said receipts.
Therefore, Ex.P14 to P17 are of no use to the complainant to establish his capacity to lend the amount. No acceptable evidence is placed before this court to prove that the above mentioned persons are the subscribers of the chit run by the accused, since none of them have been examined by the complainant to prove his version. The complainant was not the author of said documents. It is not known how he got in possession of those documents that are alleged to have been issued by the accused to the chit subscribers. None of the chit subscribers are examined before the court to prove the alleged receipts. In the absence of the same, the court cannot come to the conclusion that the accused issued the said chit receipts in favour of the subscribers.
25.In the complaint, the complainant simply stated that when the accused sustained loss in the business, on the request of accused, he lent hand loan of Rs.11,00,000/-, that too without obtaining any guarantee or security for the so called alleged hand loan. No creditor will lend such huge amount without asking for any valuable security and without demanding any guarantor.
26. Furthermore, as per the complaint averments, the complainant contended that prior to lending the cheque amount, on 10-5-2010 he lent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, for which the accused issued a receipt. But for the reasons better known to him, the complainant failed to produce and exhibit the same before this court.
27.In the present case, the accused has taken defence that he never borrowed any loan from the complainant and also questioned the financial capacity of the complainant to lend such a huge amount. In this aspect, it is appropriate to refer judgment reported in Rohitbhai 11
CC. No.487 of 2016
Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat : AIR 2019 SC 1876, Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that “whenever the accused has questioned the financial capacity of the complainant in support of his probable defence, despite the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act about the presumption of legally enforceable debt and such presumption is rebuttable, thereafter the onus shifts again on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and at that stage the complainant is required to lead the evidence to prove his financial capacity, more particularly when it is a case of giving loan by cash and thereafter issuance of a cheque".
28.The crux of the decision referred to above is that the complainant has no obligation, in all cases under Section 138 of the Act, to prove his financial capacity. But, when the case of the complainant is that he lent money to the accused by cash and that the accused issued the cheque in discharge of the liability, and if the accused challenges the financial capacity of the complainant to advance the money, despite the presumption under Section 139 of the
Act, the complainant has the obligation to prove his financial capacity or the source of the money allegedly lent by him to the accused. The complainant has no initial burden to prove his financial capacity or the source of the money. The obligation in that regard would arise only when his capacity or capability to advance the money is challenged by the accused. In the present case, the accused had challenged the financial capacity of the complainant to lend an amount of Rs.11,00,000/-. On the other hand, the complainant claims that he has lent Rs.11,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash. Under such circumstances, it is for the complainant to establish his financial capacity and source of income to lend such huge amount at the relevant point of time.
29. During the cross-examination, the complainant deposed that, out of his income from salary and agriculture income he lent loan to the accused. He deposed that he was getting income of Rs.22,000/- per month towards his salary and Rs.50,000/- per year towards lease 12
CC. No.487 of 2016
of agriculture land, at the relevant point of time. He further deposed that he kept amount in house. But he has not shown the said amount in his Income Tax returns. He denied the suggestion that he had no capacity to lend Rs.11,00,000/- at the relevant point of time. No document is placed before this court that he owns agricultural land and gets an amount of
Rs.50,000/- per annum. When the complainant himself saying that he earns an amount of
Rs.22,000/- per month towards salary and has to maintain his wife and two children from the said meager amount, it is difficult to believe that he lent Rs.11,00,000/- to the accused that too without insisting him to provide any valuable security or guarantee. Hence, it is highly improbable to believe the version of PW.1, that he lent such huge amount of Rs.11,00,000/- at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the complainant utterly failed to prove his financial capacity and source of income to lend loan of Rs.11,00,000/- at the relevant point of time.
30.The loan amount is very substantial and it is highly improbable that a person would lend such huge amount to the other person without taking adequate security. Moreover, the complainant could not prove his financial capacity to advance such huge loan amount to the accused. In the absence of the same, the allegations of the complainant that the alleged loan amount was advanced to the accused, cannot be believed that he might have advanced said amount to the accused. Therefore, having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and evidences available on record, the complainant's evidence is not suffices to establish the existence of debt.
31. In this case, no evidence has been adduced by the complainant to prove the transaction which had been categorically denied by the accused. Further, the complainant has not placed any material to prove his financial capacity. No presumption can be drawn that the complainant has capacity to lend to the tune of Rs. 11,00,000/- merely on the basis 13
CC. No.487 of 2016
of self serving statement of the complainant without the proof of income of the complainant.
There is a major contradiction in the evidence of complainant. The statement of complainant not corroborated by the material available on the record. Hence, the contention of complainant that the accused borrowed a loan of Rs. 11,00,000/- cannot be accepted. The complainant miserably failed to establish his capacity to lend such a huge amount of
Rs.11,00,000/- (Rs. Eleven lakhs only) to the accused, when the improbability of lending such a huge consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rs. Eleven lakhs only) is apparanet from the record, it cannot be said that the cheque/Ex.P1 is issued towards legally enforceable debt.
The several decisions(mentioned supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant are of no help to the case of the complainant.
32. Another contention of the defence counsel is that, the demand notice was not served to the accused. The burden is on the complainant that the notice was dispatched by post with correct address. Per contra, Learned Counsel for complainant argued that the notice was duly served on the accused and the he learned counsel for the Complainant relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in B.Raghunandan
Reddy Vs. V.Rajashekar Reddy in Crl.A.821 of 2007 wherein it was held that
Having been received and acknowledged staturory legal notice after dishonour of cheque, non-giving of reply to the said legal notice, improbabalises defence version, as any prudent person under said circumstances should have, but for no defence to reply.
33. The object of Sec.138(b) of NI Act is to give an opportunity to the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. The complainant has to place documentary proof with regard to service of the said notice. In the case on hand except producing a postal receipt said to have been issued for the dispatch of the notice and the letter addressed to the Manager, Postal Department without receiving any reply, are 14
CC. No.487 of 2016
produced.The complainant though stated that an acknowledgment was not received, he could have obtained postal track report and establish that the said cover was either returned or refused. No such effort was made by the complainant. Mere addressing a letter to the
Postal authorities under Ex.P7 would not be suffice. That being the position and in the complaint itself having not been mentioned that the notice has been served, on the assertions made in the complaint itself, the complaint is not maintainable. Absolutely, there is no iota of evidence on the record to show that legal notice has been served on the accused. Admittedly, the complainant has not examined the official of the Postal Authorities to show that the notice was served on the accused. Non-examination of postman is fatal to the case of the complainant. Therefore, the contention of complainant that the notice was served on accused cannot be acceptable. Therefore, the notice under Sec.138(b) of the Act was not proved to be served on the accused, which is the mandatory requirement to attract the offence under Sec.138 of NI Act.
34.It is well settled that the pre-condition of filing complaint u/Sec.138 of NI Act not fulfilled when statutory notice of demand is not served. Hence, without service of statutory notice a demand upon accused, it cannot be stated that the offence u/Sec.138 of NI Act is made against him.
35. In the instant case, there is another circumstance which goes against the case of the complainant is that even though the Complainant, at paragraph No.5, in the complaint, had mentioned the cheque number as '942917' but mentioned the cheque number incorrectly as '94291' in Ex.P4 legal notice, this Court is of the considered view that there is no mist or cloud or any manner of doubt in regard to the language employed in Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. Admittedly, notice will have to be read in entirety. In the present case, there was no correction notice communicated/issued on behalf of the Complainant to 15
CC. No.487 of 2016
the Accused. Yet another circumstance which goes against the case of the complainant is that the complainant in paragraph No.9 in the complaint as well as in the legal notice under
Ex.P4, had demanded the accused calling upon him to make payment within 10 days instead of “15” days. In the instant case, the statutory notice under Ex.P4 is very defective.
As per Sed.138(b) of NI Act, fifteen days clear notice has to be given to the drawer of the cheque but only ten days time is mentioned in the said notice. Certainly, the incorrect mentioning of the cheque number and calling upon the accused to make payment within 10 days, instead of 15 days in Ex.P4 Notice, is not fulfilling the requirement under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In as much as Ex.P4 Notice is not in conformity with
Ex.P1 Cheque, as a logical corollary, the complaint filed by the Complainant is per se not maintainable in Law.
36.Considering the overall oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the complainant as well as the contentions of the accused, this Court has come to the conclusion that by preponderance of probabilities, the accused has rebutted the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act, but the complainant has failed to prove the allegations made against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of accused and against the complainant.
Point No.2:-
37. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 138 of NI
Act and he is acquitted u/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C.
Prepared by me on my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 rd day of April 2025.
VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, AT MEDCHAL
16
CC. No.487 of 2016
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
PROSECUTION: ACCUSED:
PW1: Sri. B. Suryanarayana/Complainant -None-
PW2: Sri Bandi Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex: P1 is original cheque bearing no.942917 dated 23-6-2012
Ex: P2 is Bank receipt dated 01-8-2012
Ex: P3 is bank return memo dated 03-08-2012
Ex: P4 is office copy of legal notice dated 14-8-2012
Ex: P5 is Postal receipt dated 14-8-2012
Ex: P6 is Postal receipt dated 14-8-2012
Ex: P7 is acknowledgment card
Ex: P8 is cheque bearing no.942902 dated 15-12-2011
Ex: P9 is bank return memo dated 17-12-2011
Ex: P10 is cheque bearing no.942903 dated 15-12-2011
Ex: P11 is bank return memo dated 17-12-2011
Ex: P12 is cheque bearing no.942904 dated 21-11-2011
Ex: P13 is return memo dated 30-12-2011
Ex: P14 is Chit receipts issued by the accused in the name of Rajeshwari
Ex: P15 is Chit receipts issued in the name of Bhanu
Ex: P16 is Chit receipts issued in the name of Dattu
Ex: P17 is Chit receipts issued by the accused in the name of Sri Ramulu
FOR ACCUSED:
-Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS IF ANY
-Nil-
VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, AT MEDCHAL