C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 1 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026
IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL
OF CASES UNDER TELANGANA PROHIBITION AND EXCISE ACT-cum-IV
ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, WARANGAL.
Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2026. Present: Smt Raj Nidhi, Spl. J.M.F.C. for Trial of Cases under T.S.Proh. & Excise Act-cum-IV Addl.J.C.J., Warangal.
C.C.NI.No. 15 of 2024
(STC NI.No.632 of 2022)
Between:
KOLA VIJAYA LAXMI, W/o. Sridhar, Aged 37 Years, Occu: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 18-8-13, Kareemabad, Warangal District. … Complainant.
AND
KATHERASHALA VENUGOPAL S/o. Mallesham, Occu: Finance Business, R/o. H.No.11-12-540, 2nd Floor, O City, Warangal District.
...Accused
This case coming up before me on this day for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri Mateti Narender, Counsel for the Complainant and of Sri K.Sridhar, Counsel for the Accused and having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
01.This is a complaint fled under Sec.200 Cr.P.C., by Kola Vijaya Laxmi, the Complainant against the Accused – Katherashala Venugopal, for the ofence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (here in after be referred to as N.I. Act).
02. The brief facts of the Complaint:-
The complainant submits that, the accused and Complainant are well acquainted with each other as they are related to each other. Out of such acquaintance the Accused approached the complainant at his residence, and for his family and Business necessities requested to arrange an amount of Rs.
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 2 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026 9,00,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakh only), as such the complainant believing his words gave a sum of Rs.9.00.000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs only) to Accused as a hand loan, and after receiving the said amount, the accused executed a demand promissory note in favour of the Complainant Dt.05-10-2021, in the presence of witnesses
R.Praveen and D.Rakesh agreeing to repay the same within short period along with accrued interest @ 01% per month, or as and when ordered by the complainant.
The Complainant further contended that, after borrowing the said amount, the Accused neither paid the interest nor the principal borrowed amount and when the complainant approached and requested the accused to pay the borrowed amount along with accrued interest, the accused postponed the matter in one pretext or the other and requested the complainant to wait some time for payment. Believing the words of the Accused the complainant waited some period and fnally on last demand on 03-09-2022 the Accused issued a cheque vide cheque No.179535, for Rs.9,90,000/- drawn on STATE
BANK OF INDIA, Enumamula Branch, Warangal and agreed to pay the interest amount after realization of the cheque amount, and he issued the above cheque in favour of complainant and assured that there was sufcient funds in his account to honour the said cheque and requested the complainant to present the said cheque before his banker for encashment. Accordingly, the complainant presented the said cheque into his bank i.e. Canara Bank, Krishna Colony Branch,
Warangal on 03-09-2022, the said cheque was dishonoured with a cheque return memo with an endorsement as "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" Dt.05-09-2022. Then the complainant informed the same to Accused and where the accused gave evasive reply to complainant. Further the Complainant sent a legal notice Dt. 07-09-
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 3 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026 2022 on accused to pay the cheque amount, where the accused received the said notice and sent a reply notice Dt.12-09-2022 with vague averments. The
Accused have issued the above cheque towards the discharge of the legally enforceable debt, and have issued the said cheuqe with an intention to cheat the complainant. Therefore, the accused committed the ofence under section 138 of N.I.Act., Hence, the complainant fled the complaint.
03.The Complainant fled sworn statement incorporating the contents as mentioned by him in his complaint.
04.Upon consideration of the complaint and sworn statement on 05.12.2022 the cognizance as per Sec.190 (1)(a) of Cr.P.C., for the ofence punishable under section 138 of N.I Act, 1881 was taken against the Accused by the then court and the Accused was summoned as per Sec.204 Cr.P.C. On appearance of the
Accused, furnished the copies of the case under Section 207 of Criminal
Procedure Code, and the Accused was examined under Section 251 of Criminal
Procedure Code where in the substance of accusation leveled against the
Accused was explained in vernacular language, for which the Accused understood the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.
05.The Complainant in order to prove her case got herself examined as PW.1 and she fled her examination in chief afdavit incorporating the contents as stated in the complaint. Therefore, narration of those facts over again will not serve any useful purpose. The Complainant got marked Exhibits i.e., Ex.P1 to P7 as documentary evidence.
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 4 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026
Ex.P1 is the Original Cheque bearing No. 179535, Dated:03.09.2022.
Ex.P2 is the Cheque return memo dated 05.09.2022
Ex.P3 is the Original Promissory dated 05.10.2021
Ex.P4 is the Ofce copy of legal notice, Dated 07.09.2022.
Ex.P5 is the Postal Receipts, Dated 07.09.2022
Ex.P6 is the RP cover along with acknowledgment card, dated 13.09.2022
Ex.P.7 is the reply notice dated 12.09.2022.
05.1. During the Cross examination of PW1, she stated that, she is a house wife and her husband is a private employee at Hero Finance,
Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda and he earns about Rs.20,000/- per month approximately. PW1 denied the suggestion that, in Ex.P4 she has not specifcally mentioned the date when the accused borrowed cheque amount from her.
PW1 admitted that in Ex.P7/reply notice is given to PW1 by the accused counsel and it was stated in its that the accused repaid amounts to husband of PW1.
PW1 admitted in the cross that, she did not give any reply to Ex.P7. PW1 denied the the suggestion that her husband has received the amounts from accused and inspite of that she has fled a false case against the accused. PW1 admitted that, the hand writing on Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 belongs to the accused. PW1 denied the suggestion that, Ex.P3 blanks were flled by PW1 and fled a false case against the accused. PW1 stated in her cross that, an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- was with her at her residence. PW1 stated that she and her husband are not an income tax assessee. PW1 stated in her cross that, her husband / Kola Sridhar and his mobile number is 9390120954. PW1 stated that she does not know as to how many bank accounts are their in her husband's name. PW1 stated in her
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 5 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026 cross that, her husband might have HDFC Bank account for the purpose of his ofce work, but she has no knowledge about the same. PW1 admitted that in
Ex.P7 the accused has mentioned that Ex.P1 amount is returned through phone pay online transaction to PW1’s husband's bank account. PW1 stated that she has not fled a rejoinder to Ex.P7 by stating that the accused has not paid any amount to her husband. PW1 denied the suggestion that the accused has borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from her husband and obtained Blank
Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 for security purpose. PW1 denied the suggestion that, on 01.07.2022 the accused had asked her husband to return back Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 as the accused has paid amount of Rs.3,00,000/-through online transaction. PW1 denied the suggestion that, he has not given any Ex.P1 amount and Ex.P3 to the accused and there are no transaction between PW1 and the accused. PW1 denied the suggestion that, she has not mentioned the date on which the transaction took place between herself and the accused in Ex.P4. PW1 denied the suggestion that, Ex.P3 was not scribed by the accused and also Ex.P1 is not flled by the accused. PW1 stated that she has no objection to send the Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 for FSL. PW1 stated that, she has not fled any money recovery suit against the accused. PW1 admitted that she has not sent the legal notice for demand of repayment of amount before issuance of Ex.P1 by the accused. PW1 denied the suggestion that, the accused requested to arrange an amount
Rs.9,00,000/- as hand loan and she has not given the said amount to the accused. PW1 denied the suggestion that, in Ex.P4 she has not mentioned the date of transaction of the borrowed hand loan by the accused. PW1 denied the suggestion that, Ex.P1 is not issued by the accused for discharge of the legally enforceable debt. PW1 denied the suggestion that, she is not having fnancial
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 6 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026 capacity to give a loan of Rs.9,00,000/- to the accused. PW1 admitted that, the accused is her relative and he resides at Raghavapuram, Agramphad, Athmakur
Mandal, Hanamkonda and the accused has requested for hand loan for his business. PW1 denied the suggestion that, the accused is not residing in the given address in Ex.P3 at the time of Execution of Ex.P3. PW1 admitted that, she has not visited the accused residence at 'O' City, Warangal. PW1 denied the suggestion that, as the accused issued Ex.P1 and P3 to her husband and the same was misused by her and she is scribed Ex.P1 and P3 in collusion with witnesses and fled the present false case against the accused. PW1 denied the suggestion that, the accused is not liable to discharge the legally enforceable debt.
06.After completion of Complainant evidence, Accused was examined under
Sec.313 Criminal Procedure Code,1973 for which he denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidence deposed against him and reported defence evidence, and the accused got examined as witness by entering into witness box by fling afdavit in lieu of chief examination as DW1/Katherashala Venugopal.
In support to his case, DW1 got marked Ex.D1 and in support of his evidence
K.Sridhar got examined as DW2.
07.During his chief examination of DW1, stated that, he reiterated the contents of the afdavit and the same is taken as his evidence in chief.
During the cross-examination of DW1, he stated that, he was not doing
Adthi Business and he is the relative of PW1. In the cross of DW1, he stated that, out of the said relation he has receive an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from PW.1 for
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 7 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026 his business requirements and witness admits that he has executed Ex.P3 on 05.10.2021. DW1 stated that, inspite of repeated demands from PW.1 he has not repaid the said amount to PW.1. DW1 denied the suggestion that he along with his wife has attacked PW.1. PW1 admitted that he is resident of O-City and
PW.1 has lodged a case at PS Mills Colony against DW1 for attack on PW.1. DW1 admitted that, Police called him to the police station and he has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to PW.1. DW1 stated in his cross that, in the year, 2019 he had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from PW.1's husband by executing promissory note for Rs.3,00,000/-. DW1 admitted that Ex.P1 and the signature on it is of PW1’s and denied the blanks flled on Ex.P1. DW1 admitted that, Ex.P1 was returned through Ex.P2. DW1 admitted that, he received Ex.P4 and he gave reply notice through Ex.P7. DW1 denied the suggestion that, PW.1 does not know the transaction of Rs.3,00,000/- which took place between DW1 and husband of PW.1. DW1 admitted that, he has not taken any legal action against PW.1. DW1 denied the suggestion that, he has borrowed the said amount from PW.1 and have not repaid the same and to evade the said amount he had issued Ex.P1 by knowing the same that in his bank account there are no sufcient funds. DW1 denied the suggestion that, he was deposing false in the present case.
08.Later the accused fled 311 Cr.P.C to recall the DW1 and the same was allowed on 23.02.2026 and DW1 got marked Ex.D1 which is original statements of account issued by Manager SBI, Enumamula Branch from 01.03.2020 to 30.03.2020 and 21.01.2022 and 30.06.2022 and 01.07.2022.
09.During the cross of DW1, he denied the suggestion that he was doing
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 8 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026 business. DW1 admitted that, the occupation column in his reply notice and chief afdavit he has mentioned Business / Finance. DW1 admitted the suggestion that he has mentioned two diferent statement in his reply notice stating that he has borrowed money amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- in the year 2019 from complainant and executed demand promissory note in favour of the complainant, and in his chief he has mentioned that he has borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in the year 2019 from the husband of the complainant and executed a demand promissory note in his favour. DW1 admits that the contents mentioned in his chief is correct. DW1 stated that he has fled one year account statement. DW1 stated that he cannot say the specifc dates on which he transferred amount to husband of PW1. DW1 adds that, he made payment about six times through phone pay and some amount through cash.
DW1 denied the suggestion that there is no connection between the present case and the above said transactions. DW1 denied the suggestion that he has borrowed amount from PW1. DW1 denied the suggestion that, since he runs a business he borrowed money from the husband of PW1 who is the fnancier and the payments stated in his bank account statements are the transactions relating to the repayment the borrowed amount from the husband of PW1.
10.K.Sridhar fled his chief afdavit as DW2 to substantiate his evidence.
During the cross of DW2, he stated that PW1 is his wife and he was working in
Hero fn corp limited. He admitted that, he has accountant in SBI Bank,
Kareemabad Branch, Warangal and he has account in HDFC Bank, Warangal and
Kotak Mahendra bank, Warangal and DW2 admitted that, the accused is his relative. DW1 denied the suggestion that, the accused has borrowed an amount
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 9 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026 of Rs.3,00,000/- from DW2. DW2 admitted that, the accused transferred amount to his account as accused used to do Adhti business and he used to borrow money from DW2 and accused used to repay the amount to DW2's bank account. DW2 stated that, PW1 is his wife. They receive rents from house properties. DW2 stated that, he has a house at Kareemabad H.No.18-08-13 and the house stands in his name. DW2 stated PW1 was having her own saving account. She is not doing any job or business. DW2 stated that he was not present at the time of transaction. DW2 stated that he was totally unaware about the fact that PW1 lent money to accused. DW2 stated that he does not know who scribed the promissory note. DW2 stated that, Ravula Praveen and
Rakesh are his relatives. DW2 stated that he does not know that Ravula Praveen has also issued a legal notice against the accused, dt 16-09-2022. DW2 stated that he does not know if the accused gave the reply to the said notice. DW2 stated that, he does not know as to why Ravula Praveen did not fle the case against the accused. DW2 admitted that, he has not fled any case against the accused. DW2 denied the suggestion that the accused issued promissory note and the cheque in DW1’s favour at the time of borrowing from DW2 the accused given Ex.P1 and P3 for security purpose. DW2 stated that, he does not know the
Ex.P1. DW2 admitted that the accused has repaid the amounts which he has borrowed from DW2 for Adhti business. DW2 denied the suggestion that, the accused has given cheques and promissory note for security purpose as DW2 used to lent accused money for Adthi business and after he repaid the entire money which accused borrowed, the accused demanded for promissory note and cheque to which DW2 told him that he has misplaced them and will return to him after it is traced out. DW2 denied the suggestion that, due to close
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 10 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026 relationship the accused did not compel him to return back the cheque and promissory note and he did not issue any legal notice against DW2. Further DW2 gave him assurance that DW2 will not fle any case against him. DW2 admitted that, he earns about Rs. 25,000/- to 30,000/-. DW2 denied the suggestion that, he does not receive any rents and salary is the only source of income. DW2 denied the suggestion that, PW1 and DW2 does not have a fnancial capacity to lent huge amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-. DW2 stated that, he does not know if
Ravula Praveen and Rakesh are attesting witness to the promissory note. DW2 denied the suggestion that, PW1 and DW2 scribed Cheque and promissory note.
DW2 denied the suggestion that, the accused has never borrowed money from
PW1. DW2 stated that, he came to know about the said transaction only after fling of the case. DW2 denied the suggestion that, the accused never executed promissory note and cheque and DW2 only got to know about this transaction after fling of this case. DW2 denied the suggestion that he along with PW1 in collusion with their relative have fabricated the document and fled this false case against the accused to extract huge amounts from accused.
11.Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the record.
12.The counsel for the accused and complainant fled written arguments. It is submitted by the complainant that, she has lent Rs.9,00,000/- to accused in his family and business necessities on 05.10.2021 in the presence of witnesses agreeing to repay the same within short period along with accrued interest on 01% per month or assignment order by the complainant. It is submitted that, as per the directions of the accused the complainant presented the said cheque issued in the bank account on 03.09.2022 lying that the cheque was returned
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 11 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026 and unpaid stating that “Funds Insufcientn on 05.09.2022 soon later the complainant approached the accused and demanded to pay the cheque amount to which the accused gave evasive reply and the complainant issued statutory legal notice dated 07.09.2022 demanding the accused to repay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice. The said legal notice was served on the accused and received the said notice and sent a reply notice dated 12.09.2022 with vague averments.
13. Now the point for determination is:
Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence under section 138i of the Neegotiablle Innstrument Act,c 1ii1 bleyoond all reasonablle doublt?
14. POInNeT :
14.1. In this case the accusation made against the Accused is under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said section deals with the dishonour of the cheque for insufciency etc., of funds in the account.
A drawer of a dishonoured cheque shall be deemed to have committed an ofence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of the N.I Act, 1881 be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fne which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both.
14.2. To make out an ofence under the said section one of the main ingredients is that the cheque is returned unpaid because of the amount available in that account is insufcient for making the payment of the cheque.
The cheque may be returned by the Bank unpaid for various reasons. But the parliament in its wisdom has confned the ofence referred to in section 138 of
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 12 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026 the Act only to bouncing of the cheque on the ground of inadequate balance in the account concerned.
15.To attract Section 138 of NI Act can be completed only with concatenation of numbers of acts.
1. Drawing of cheque.
2. Presentation of cheque to the bank
3. Returning the cheque unpaid by the bank
4. Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding him to pay the cheque amount.
5. Failure of drawer to make payment within 15 days of receipt of the notice.
15.1. The Complainant must prove that the cheque in question was issued by the Accused and same was presented by the Complainant for encashment within three months limitation and upon such presentation the cheque must return unpaid by the banker of the Accused due to insufcient funds in the account of the Accused and thereby, the Complainant on receiving return memo by the bank authorities shall issue legal notice to the Accused within 30 days from the date of return memo and thereby the Accused must give a reply notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice and if the Accused failed to give the reply notice then the Complainant must fle the complaint within one month from the date of lapse of 15 days where the cause of action arose. The statutory time limits as mentioned by the Negotiable
Instrument Act is complied by the Complainant. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, the Complainant proved the statutory time limits of the cheque and he must prove the debt is a legally enforceable debt.
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 13 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026 15.2. In the present case, the accused has given cheque bearing
No.179535, dated 03.09.2022 to the complainant for an amount of Rs.9,90,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs ninety thousand only) for payment of money to the complainant. PW1/Complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint and the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.P1 to P7 would prima facie prove that the accused has issued a cheque in favour of the complainant which was dishonored on the ground of “Funds Insufcientn. The complainant has stated that due to the acquaintance with the accused, the accused requested the complainant stating that there is a family necessities and requesting the complainant to lent an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to the accused for an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- in the presence of witnesses R.Praveen and D.Rakesh. The accused issued a posted dated cheque bearing No.179535 dated 03.09.2022 for Rs.9,90,000/- in favour of complainant, drawn on State Bank of India, Enumamula Branch, Warangal towards the discharge of legal liability. Accordingly, when the cheque was presented on 03.09.2022, the said cheque was dishonored with a cheque return memo with an endorsement as “Insufcient Fundsn dt.05.09.2022.
16.On careful perusal of the documents and return memo, it is clearly stated on the return memo that the cheque was returned on the grounds of “Funds
Insufcientn. Thus, one of the ingredient of Sec.138 of N.I.Act., is attracted.
The counsel for the accused has taken plea that PW1 does not have the fnancial capacity to lend such huge amount.
17. This Court relies upon the recent pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass Mahant [ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275] held that it cannot be expected of a complainant to initially lead the evidence to show that
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 14 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026 he had fnancial capacity unless such a case was set up by the accused. However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable, which accused can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents. It is also open to accused establish the very same aspect by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself. Applying the above legal principles to the present case, it is evident that the accused has raised in fnancial capacity during the cross- examination of PW1, but no documentary evidence has been fled. However, it is equally important to note that the defence has not produced any independent material to demonstrate that the complainant was not in a fnancial position to lend the money. No Income Tax Returns (ITRs), bank statements, or third-party witnesses have been brought on record by the defence to substantiate the allegation of fnancial incapacity.
The accused has taken a defence stating that the accused has issued
Ex.P1 and P3 to the husband of the complainant and the same was misused by the complainant and Ex.P1 and P3 was scribed in collusion with witness and fled the present case. Ex.P1 is the cheque issued by the accused for an amount of
Rs.9,90,000/- towards discharge of debt and Ex.P2 is cheque return memo by the bank stating that it was dishonoured for want of sufcient funds. Ex.P3 to
P7 would show that the legal notice has been issued and it was received by accused. Nothing has been elicited by cross examining PW1 to discredit his testimony. Hence, presumption under section 139 N.I Act., comes into play and the court shall presume that Ex.P1 was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and till it is disproved of accused the presumption will run in
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 15 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026 favour of PW1. The accused has disputed the issuance of questioned cheque i.e.,
Ex.P1 to PW1 stating that the accused used to borrow money from the husband of PW1 for Adthi business and Ex.P1 and P3 was given to the husband of PW1 for security purpose. The accused has failed to produce any documentary evidence to show the same. The Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act., provides for a presumption envisaged under section 118 of N.I. Act that holder of cheque, received the cheque for consideration in the nature referred to in Section 138 of N.I Act., for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. However the Accused has failed to adduce any probable defence to show that the cheque was procured by complainant in confrontation manner and also failed to rebuttal evidence to discharge the burden laid upon him and did not place any iota of evidence under what circumstances the cheque/Ex.P1 was issued to PW.1.
18.This Court opines that in the present case, the Complainant/PW.1 by virtue of Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 could prove all the concomitants of Sec.138 of N.I Act., and therefore, the presumption U/Sec.139 of N.I Act would come into play.
It was contended that to invoke liability under section 138 of NI Act, existence of legally enforceable debt is sine-qua-non. Once Complainant could discharge the initial burden, the onus of proof would shift to the Accused. In the present case, by exhibiting Ex.P1 to Ex.P7, the Complainant could prove that
Accused, had issued a cheque, which would fall within the meaning of
Section 138 of N.I Act. Accused has not denied the issuance of cheque.
Accused has not taken a plea that Ex.P1 was illegally secured and the signature on Ex.P1 was not of Accused. However, Accused could not elicit the
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 16 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026 circumstances as to how the cheque went into the hands of Complainant and the Accused has admitted that he received Ex.P4 and failed to give reply notice.
The Accused could not make out a probable defence of misusing of
Ex.P1/cheque. The accused has taken a defence stating that, the cheque Ex.P1 is invalid as the account number of the complainant is also mentioned in the frst column i.e., payee name, but the cheque was returned by the Bank on the ground of “Funds Insufcientn, attracting the ofence Under Section 138 of
N.I.Act.
19.In the light of discussion supra, this court opines that the Complainant could discharge his initial burden that was cast on him, by his evidence as
PW.1 which is corroborating along with the documentary evidence Ex.P1 to
Ex.P7, and with the material record can be considered and the Accused could not rebut the presumption under section 139 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, it can be clearly seen that the Complainant has established his case against the
Accused and the Accused is found guilty for the ofence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
20.However, this court relied on Judgment of Apex Court in Somnath
Sarkar vs. Utpal Basu Mallick AIR 2014 SC 771 that the N.I. Act had not contemplated grant of compensation, but envisages imposition of fne not exceeding twice the amount of dishonor of cheque and out of the said fne, the Complainant be compensated under section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and that unlike other forms of crimes, the punishment under this enactment is not a means to seek retribution, but is more a means to ensure payment of money.
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 17 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026
The Complainant's interest lies primarily in recovery of money, not by seeing the drawer of the cheque in jail.
21.In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the ofence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act., 1881 and accordingly the Accused is convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C.
(Typed by the Stenographer to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of April, 2026).
Sd/-
Spl. J.M.F.C. for Trial of cases under T.S.Proh. & Excise Act- cum-IV Addl.J.C.J., Warangal.
22. On hearing the Accused on the quantum of sentence Accused, submitted that he did not commit ofence and requested time for preferring
Appeal.
23.Upon hearing the Accused on the quantum of sentence, the following sentence is passed:-
The Hon’ble Apex Court in its expression between Somnath Sarkar vs Utpal Basu Mallick and another in AIR 2014 SC 771 held that a criminal
Court is competent under section 138 of NI Act to levy fne up to twice the cheque amount and direct payment of such amount as compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of dishonour of cheque under section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
Further the proposition is laid down in the following judgments inThe
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and
the State of Andhra Pradesh following the dictum of the Hon’ble Somnath
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 18 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026
Sarkar’s case awarded compensation out of the fne amount imposed in
Omprakash Agarwal vs. Khaja Krishna Prasad and another reported in
2015(1) ALT Crl. 68, in Appolo Tyres Limited vs. H.M.Tyres and another
reported in 2014 Law Suit Hyderabad 184, S.Ravinder vs Bhasker Teja
and others reported in 2016(1) ALT Crl. 125 and in B.Raghunandan Reddy
vs. Rajashekar Reddy and another reported in 2015 (1) ALD Crl. 861.
24.The cheque amount in this case is Rs.9,90,000/- and twice the amount of cheque would come to Rs.19,80,000/- and the court can impose fne on the Accused up to Rs.19,80,000/-
25.Upon Considering the facts and circumstances and also the Judicial
Precedents, Accused is sentenced to pay fne of Rs.10,00,000/- and in default of payment the Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (2) months for the ofence under section 138 of N.I Act. Out of the fne amount of
Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.10,000/- to be paid on the date of Judgment and the same shall go to the State and the remaining fne amount of Rs.9,90,000/- shall be paid to the Complainant as compensation under section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., within three (03) months from the date of judgment. A free copy of judgment shall be given to the Accused as per Section 363 Cr.P.C r/w Rule 72 of Criminal
Rules of Practice and Circular Orders,1990. As the Accused was not remanded to judicial custody even for a single day before trial or at the time of trial, therefore, Section 428 of Cr.P.C was not invoked.
(Typed by the Stenographer to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of April, 2026).
Sd/-
Spl. J.M.F.C. for Trial of cases under T.S.Proh. & Excise Act -cum-IV Addl.J.C.J.,Warangal.
C.C.NI.No.15 of 2024 19 of 19 Dt. 30-04-2026
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
PW.1: K.Vijaya LaxmiDW.1: K.Venugopal DW.2: K.Sridhar
Exhibits Marked+
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1 is the Original Cheque bearing No. 179535, Dated:03.09.2022.
Ex.P2 is the Cheque return memo dated 05.09.2022
Ex.P3 is the Original Promissory dated 05.10.2021
Ex.P4 is the Ofce copy of legal notice, Dated 07.09.2022.
Ex.P5 is the Postal Receipts, Dated 07.09.2022
Ex.P6 is the RP cover along with acknowledgment card, dated 13.09.2022
Ex.P7 is the reply notice dated 12.09.2022.
For Defence:
Ex.D1 is original statements of account issued by Manager SBI, Enumamula
Branch from 01.03.2020 to 30.03.2020 and 21.01.2022 and 30.06.2022 and 01.07.2022.
Mos. Marked: -Nil-
Sd/-
Spl. J.M.F.C. for Trial of cases under T.S.Proh. & Excise Act -cum-IV Addl.J.C.J.,Warangal.
//True copy//