IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::
MUMMIDIVARAM.
PRESENT:- Sri S.Srinivas, B.Com., LL.M.,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mummidivaram.
Wednesday, this the 19th day of April, 2023
C.C.No.150/2016
Between:
1. Vetsa Surya Prakasa Rao (died)
2. Vetsa Veereswara Rao, S/o.Surya Prakasa Rao, Hindu, Male, age 47 years, LIC agent, R/o.Mummidivaram, Mummidivaram Mandal ( 2nd complainant was added as per order in Crl.M.P.566/2021, dt.09.09.2022)
... Complainant.
And
1. The Correspondent, Sree Vidyavan The Concept School, Sri Kavuru Satyanarayana Murty, S/o.Pallamsetti, Hindu, Male, age 50 years, C/o.Koppisetti Suribabu, Near Pallilpalem center, Mummidivaram, Mummidivaram Mandal.
2. Kavuru Satyanarayana Murty, S/o.Pallamsetti, Hindu, Male, age 50 years, C/o.Koppisetti Suribabu, Near Pallilpalem center, Mummidivaram, Mummidivaram Mandal.
... Accused.
This case is coming on 18.04.2023 for final hearing before this court in the presence of Sri G.V.Ramarao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri V.K.S.Bhaskara Sastry, Advocate for the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a case filed by the complainant under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 against the accused.
2. The brief averments of the complainant are as follows :
Accused is the correspondent of 1st accused school by name Sree
Vidyavan The concept school and Sri Vidyavan Primary High School,
Mummidivaram and the same was run in the complainant’s building bearing
D.No.8-101 (Old Court building) in Mummidivaram. The accused vacated the premises and at the time of vacating the premises and at the time of handing over the premises to the 1st complainant, the 2nd accused got issued cheques two in number dt.15.05.2015 and dt.31.05.2015 for Rs.50,000/- each drawn on
State Bank of Hyderabad, Mummidivaram towards arrears of rent and to that effect the accused executed a letter dt.17.06.2015 in favour of the 1st complainant. The 1st Complainant presented one cheque bearing No.220106 dt.15.05.2015 of SBH, Mummidivaram to his banker Andhra Bank,
Mummidivaram on 07.08.2015 for encashment of the said cheque. The 1st complainant’s banker returned the said cheque with memo dt.13.08.2015 stating that ‘funds insufficient’. The 1st complainant got issued legal notice on 28.08.2015, but the accused refused to receive the same and returned the same on 01.09.2015. The accused failed to repay the cheque amount. Hence, complainant constrained to file the case before this Hon’ble Court seeking relief of punishment against the accused.
3.The case was taken on file against the accused under section 138
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
4.On receiving summons in this case accused appeared, copies of the case documents furnished to the accused as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C and the accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence U/sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence for trial.
5.The 1st complainant in support of his case, he himself examined as PW.1.
During the course of trial, 1st complainant died. Hence, 2nd complainant added as LR to the 1st complainant to represent the matter as per orders in
Crl.M.P.No.566/2021, dt.09.09.2022. 2nd complainant himself examined as PW2.
In support of their case, PW3 also examined and got marked Ex P.1 to P.7 as detailed in the appendix of evidence.
6.After closure of complainant side evidence the accused examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, read over and explained the incriminating material appearing against the accused, for which he denied and on behalf of accused,
Dws.1 to 3 examined and got marked Ex.D1 to D4 as detailed in the appendix of evidence.
7.Heard both the sides.
8.Now the point for determination is that :-
“Whether the accused is liable for punishment under section 138
of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 “?
POINT:
9.The Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted his arguments that in this matter the original complainant entered into lease with accused with regard to running a school under name and style Sri Vidyavan Concept School.
Accused entered into alleged agreement with original complainant as
Correspondent. He issued cheques in dispute in capacity of Correspondent of the said school and failed to pay arrears as such original complainant received cheques from the accused towards clearing the arrears. Both the cheques issued by the accused are returned and dishonoured by the drawers bank with endorsement “funds insufficient”. The document filed by the complainant are clear and convincing with regard to dishonour of the cheque and the legal notice send to the accused is one and the same to which the Hon’ble Court send summons for appearance of accused. Intentionally, accused not received the legal notice send by the complainant, but he received the summons issued by this Hon’ble Court for appearance it shows one and the same address belongs to accused where he resided. The house owner who was produced on behalf of the accused as defense witness clearly stated that he belongs to the same caste of accused. In such circumstances, he is interested witness towards accused. In the cross-examination of original complainant in CC.151/2016 nothing was retrieved by the accused with regard to his defense. All these aspects clearly and convincingly proves the case against the accused and prays to punish the accused according to law.
10.The Learned Counsel for the accused submitted his arguments that complainant in his complaint suppressed the real facts and material facts and filed the present complaint by approaching this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands. The essential ingredients U/sec.138 of N.I.Act service of statutory notice was not done by complainant in a proper manner. Complainant filed the present complaint without following the terms and conditions mentioned in the lease agreement. After filing of the complaint, they entered into compromise and the said aspect was not reflecting from the side of complainant’s case. The prima facie of the document lease agreement shows of the year 2012, but the lease is actually for the period between 2013-2016. It means one year prior to the alleged lease agreement, they signed on alleged agreement which is not at all valid. Revocation of lease deed also filed by complainant which shows that there are no arrears pending from the side of accused and premises also vacated by him. Bank account of the school was closed as per the bank statement, but the plea of the complainant is cheque was dishonoured for the reason of “funds insufficient”. When there is no clarity about on which ground alleged cheque was dishonoured, then the burden of complainant was not discharged in a clear and convincing manner. Without issuing legal notice which is statutory and mandatory in a proper manner to the accused in cheque bounce case, entire complainant case has to be brushed out. The original complainant created all the documents by influencing the accused and foisted this false complaint to get wrongful gain. With these submissions prays to dismiss the complaint.
11.By way of reply, the complainant Counsel submitted that the year “2012” is only a typographical mistake and stamp in which year it was purchased clearly reflects 2013 and also the agreement registered before SRO is also of the year 2013. Hence, plea of the accused is not having much weight.
12. On hearing of both the sides this Court perused the evidences available on record both the oral and documentary. On behalf complainant, 1st complainant himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. So far as chief affidavit of PW1 is concerned, he totally reiterating the complaint averments stating that accused while vacating the complainant’s building premises issued two cheques dt.15.05.2015 and dt.31.05.2015 for Rs.50,000/- each drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Mummidivaram towards arrears of rent and to that effect the accused executed a letter dt.17.06.2015 in favour of the complainant. The 1st Complainant presented one cheque bearing
No.220106 dt.15.05.2015 in his banker Andhra Bank, Mummidivaram and the same was returned with the endorsement “funds insufficient” in the account of drawer. Even after issuance of legal notice, accused failed to repay the cheque amount.
13.PW2 who is none other than son of PW1 deposed that original complainant is his father and during the pendency of this mater, his father was died. After the death of his father, he was added as complainant to proceed with the matter. The accused while vacating the premises of their building issued two cheques for Rs.50,000/- each out of that one is in this case and another is in another matter CC.151/2016. Subsequently, his father presented the said cheque and the same was returned with endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Later, his father got issued legal notice, but the accused did not pay cheque amount. He admitted that on the death of original complainant he being the LR of his father came on record and filed evidence as PW2. He know facts of the case on hand. He came to know that accused is native of
Anathavaram. He do not know the transactions between his father and accused. He heard about the accused acted as Correspondent of Sri Vidyavan
Concept School. To his knowledge accused is the main person for running
Vidyavan Concept School. His father obtained documents relating to the said school to know about position of accused. He do not know whether any such documents filed by his father in this case. He has not filed any documents after his name was impleaded in this case. His father entered into lease agreement with the accused. He do not know whether his father filed said lease agreement in the case on hand. He has not tried to secure any certified copy of registered lease agreement to file in this case. He know the contents of legal notice sent by his father before filing the case. He do not know whether the said legal notice duly served on accused or not. Ex.P2 does not reflect cheque numbers which are allegedly issued by accused. Ex.P2 also does not reflect on which date alleged 2nd cheque for Rs.50,000/- issued by accused. He admitted that contents of Ex.P2 written with one colour of pen differently appearing with the colour of the pen used by witness for his attestation. He can not say the alleged signature on Ex.P2 relates to accused reflects in similar lines as that of signature as lessee on alleged lease agreement. He do not know why the legal notice under Ex.P4 addressed in a different manner to that of address reflecting in Aadhar card of accused enclosed to the agreement. He admitted that as per
Ex.P2 by 17.06.2015 building was handed over to them by accused. He do not know for how many months arrears rent alleged two cheques issued. He do not know the rent per month agreed by his father and accused. Prior to said
Concept School their building was given on rent basis to run the Court complex.
His father is a business man during his lifetime besides LIC agency. He admitted that Ex.P2 does not contain stamp or seal of the said school so also on Ex.P1 alleged cheque. He do not know one Vasamsetti Pattabhi Ramayya father-in-law of accused is friend to his father. He do not know his father joined accused as agent in a private firm by name Gold Quest. He do not know accused only worked as Sanskrit Teacher in Sri Vidyavan School at Amalapruam Branch. He admitted that Ex.P1 in this case and cheque in question in CC.151/2016 are issued from same booklet with continuous serial number. He do not know about the purchase of stamp papers by his father only for the purpose of registration of lease agreement and for its cancellation also. He denied the suggestion that only at the influence of his father bank accounts also opened without any authorization document. He do not know the bank account connected with cheques in question are current account. He do not know the norms fixed by bank for any current account that customer has to maintain minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- continuously otherwise within stipulated period of three months account will be closed. He do not know by the time of presentation of cheques in question connected current account already closed. He do not know whether after filing of the case on hand only lease agreement cancelled by his father or not. He denied the suggestion that they issued regular receipts on receiving monthly rent as such accused is having documentary proof to that effect and no amount due by him. He do not know whether any duplicate copy of receipts filed in the case on hand.
14.PW3 Branch Manager of Union Bank of India deposed that original complainant by name Vetsa Surya Prakasha Rao is having savings bank account
before their branch vide number 035910011000010. One cheque presented for
collection through that account. Ex.P3 is memo issued by their branch with endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Ex.P7 is the statement of account relating original complainant proving relevant transaction of Ex.P1. Account of the original complainant presently inoperative and closed. In the cross-examination, he deposed that Ex.P1 relates to the year 2015 and by that time on-line transactions started in Andhra Bank. In this matter cheque book number is
LBCC126 noted on the cheque as well as same reflecting in Ex.P7. Ex.P7 does not reflect information when Ex.P1 presented for collection. He added to say that Ex.P7 is the computer generated statement and on verifying further transactions relating to particular account in deep they can notice when the cheque was presented and other aspects but the same can not be retrieved as statement or print out. He has not brought any such deep information about
Ex.P1 presented as related aspects. Ex.P7 only reflects cheque booking date i.e., 10.08.2015. Ex.P7 does not reflect cheque return date and related aspects.
Except Ex.P7 any other information to be obtained by Clearing House,
Amalapuram. He has not obtained any further information from Clearing House about Ex.P1 except Ex.P7 available with his branch. On observing Ex.P3 it was
dated 13.08.2015. Immediately, after presenting Ex.P1 for collection it was sent
to Clearing House. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsehood at the instance of complainant.
15.Coming to accused side evidence, he himself examined as DW1 and through him Ex.D1 to D4 marked. He filed his chief affidavit deposing that he denied all the allegations made against him and he did not issue any cheque with an intention of committing fraud or cheating. In the year 2004 Sri Vidyavan the Concept School started at Mummidivaram at Tadi Tata Rao Nagar at the time he was a Sanskrit teacher in that school. In the year 2012 due to loss, original owners wre ready to leave and close the school. Then original complainant Vetsa Surya Prakasa Rao who is close friend of his father-in-law and who joined him as an agent in some insurance company approached him that he indirectly manages the school with his help. Original complainant promised him to increase his slaary with the promise of promoting to position of
Head Master of the school. He believed the words of Surya Prakasa Rao and the management also agreed for the same. As promised by the original complainant, they kept him as Head Master and opened an account and executed a lease agreement. There is employer and employee relationship between him and original complainant. The original complainant used to take care of the books of account and play money affairs. The school audit was done in his name. The original complainant started harassing him to get more students to join. On one day Government officials came to their school and verified the school premises as they received complaint from general public about the school was running in a dilabitated condition house and they issued a notice. On the next day, original complainant pressurized him and took his signature on four cheques on which account is inoperative form since long time.
He asked original complainant why he is taking the inoperative accounts cheques, on that original complainant replied that there is a problem with other bank, hence the account has to be broth to operation for smooth running of the institution. Later, original complainant all of a sudden removed him on 05.03.2015 from his employment without any reason. Then, he came to know that lease deed contains a schedule property which was shown as their property but the same fact not known to him. Later he came to know that property belongs to others and Government officials identify the fact and they called for explanation. Until the elders intervention this fact not known to him.
The original complainant misconceptions on him and the same was intimated to the Government officials by way of letter. Without information the school material which belongs to the original school management should have been handed over was not handed over to the original management. The original complainant sold away the furniture etc. then the original owners came to him and raised dispute with him for their school record and furniture. In the meanwhile, the original complainant filed the present case. He placed the matter before elders for settlement. As per the oral settlement, the original complainant has to execute a released deed and he surrender school record and two other cheques and close these cases filed before this Hon’ble Court. As per the oral agreement, he signed the lease deed at sub register office,
Mummidivaram. The original complainant handed over two blank cheques to him but he mislead and deceive oral settlement and not heard the words of the elders and continuing this case with a fraudulent manner. He believed that the bounced cheque was game played by the original complainant. He always acted in a lawful and ethical manner in all of his business dealings and he never engaged in any conduct that could be considered fraudulent or cheating.
16.Coming to cross-examination, he deposed that he is native of
Anatavaram. He worked as Sanskrit faculty. He can understand facts mentioned in a document on observing the same. He never worked as correspondent for
Sri Vidyavan the concept school. He admitted that as per Ex.D2 he along with original complaint Vetsa Surya Prakasa Rao entered into lease agreement relating the school by showing him as Correspondent of said school and the terms are made over to him and on his willingness only he signed in Ex.D2. He do not know whether in cross examination of PW1 by previous Counsel examined and suggested and touching the aspects of alleged Ex.D2 as a formal document only. Upto March, 2015 Sri Vidyavan the concept school running in the disputed premises. Ex.D1 receipts filed by him as Head Master. On every payment of rent original complainant issued respective receipt. He has not filed all the rent receipts. He added to say that as some of the receipts held up with his previous Counsel who is no more. He has not mentioned in his chief affidavit about some of the receipts held up with his previous Counsel. He filed Ex.D3 and its contents are correct, which was taken place between himself and original complainant. As original complainant requested him to cancel the lease then he entered into Ex.D3. Ex.D3 does not reflect information about no dues from him side. He added to say that Ex.D3 prepared by original complaint itself by orally stating to close the cases between them. He admitted that Ex.D3 also does not reflect information of alleged hand overing four cheques by him to the original complainant. Ex.D4 reflects his name as Correspondent and having transactions done by him in the capacity of Correspondent of the school. He added to say that all the transactions and opening of the account taken place from his side at the request of original complainant and he believed in words.
He has not noted name of the insurance company in his chief affidavit to which he was allegedly appointed as agent by original complainant. He added to say that name of the insurance company is Gold Quest which is presently not in force. Original complainant given cash on hand to him directly basing on the policies done by him. He admitted that he has no piece of paper to show about alleged agency by him with Gold Quest company. He has not taken any steps in the manner of issuing legal notices to the original complainant during his life time after filing of the complaint. He added to say that he placed the matter
before elders. He has not given police report with allegations of cheating
against original complainant. He admitted that director of the school is different to that of management of the school. He added to say that original complainant acted as director of the school. Original complainant only paid salary to him.
One V.Venkateswara Rao and Purna Chandra Rao are the management of Sri
Vidyan the Concept school. He denied the suggestion that signature on Ex.P2 belongs to him. He has not taken any steps for sending disputed Ex.P2 signature to expert for opinion. He has no objection for sending the same to expert. He denied the suggest that he is deposing entirely falsehood.
17.DW2 deposed that he do not know the accused in this case. Accused never resided in his house. He do not know school and name and style Sri
Vidyavan concept school. He never received any letters in the name of Sri
Vidyavan concept school or in the name of Kavuru Satyanarayana i.e., Accused through postal or Court. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he is having own house in Pallipalem Center which is multi stored building. He is residing in the ground floor of his building by letting out upstairs. He constructed ground floor in the year, 2006 but he do not remember when the up stairs constructed by him. He admitted that generally postal authority or any authority about tenant only for serving papers. He belongs to Settibalija community but he do not know the caste of accused. He got facial acquaintance with accused. He denied the suggestion that original complainant himself brought accused as tenant in his house. In the re-examination, he deposed that he know the original complainant.
18.DW3 deposed that he know the original complainant. He got acquaintance with accused through original complainant as they also acted LIC agents when his father worked at MRO Office, Mummidivaram. He joined his daughter in Sri Vidyavan concept school through original complainant where accused also worked. He know some disputes exists between original complainant and accused and in that process four cheques handed over by accused at SRO, Mummidivaram premises. The signature shown to him in Ex.D3 belongs to him as second attestor. At the request of original complainant, he signed in Ex.D3 as a witness and they represented that disputes between looked after by them at subsequent time. Coming to cross-examination, he deposed that he has no idea specifically about document on which he signed.
He came to know about dispute relating to school between both the parties. He has no piece of paper to show about his daughter joined Sri Vidyavan the concept school. Ex.D3 does not contain recital regarding any cheque. He is
Settibalija by caste. As per Ex.D3 accused is the correspondent of the school.
He has no personal knowledge about the school matters in detail. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsehood at the instance of DW1 with a view to help the accused being same caste person.
19.Perused the evidence of both the parties it was clear that there is a lease agreement between original complainant and the accused. The said lease agreement was admitted by accused also by filing the same as Ex.D2 on his behalf. On keen observation of Ex.D2 lease deed is of the date 27.04.2012. The said aspect was raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused that it was prepared in the year 2012 i.e., one year prior to the alleged agreement period.
But, on observing the date when the stamp was purchased shows it was on 24.04.2013. Even the registration endorsement also shows of the year 2013.
Hence, straight away the contention of the accused brushed out with regard to lease deed dt.27.04.2012 as considering it as a typographical mistake. On observing the disputed cheque in question in this case, it was clearly reflecting that accused issued the said cheque in the capacity of Correspondent of Sri
Vidyavan the Concept School. The connected CC.No.151/2016 also shows the disputed cheque in the similar lines issued from that of one and the same booklet. Another contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused is that account of the accused was closed. But the cheques are dishonoured with endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. The version of PW3 bank official clearly shows that they collected Rs.171/- towards cheque collection charges. It means cheque was presented for collection and the same was returned with endorsement “funds insufficient”. Ex.P7 reflects the said aspect statement of account of original complainant. The contention of the accused is that he never acted as correspondent of the Sri Vidyavan the Concept School. But, on observing Ex.D2 he clearly admitted that the said lease deed was entered by him with original complainant. Accused is admittedly double PG graduate as per his admission in the cross-examination. Being an educated person, how accused signed as Correspondent of Sri Vidyavan the Concept School and entered into lease agreement without knowledge. The version of accused is that at the instance of original complainant only he has done all the acts like entering into lease agreement, doing agency with regard to Gold Quest and other related aspects. Whatever may be the understanding between original complainant and accused, but the existence of lease deed came to light in the manner of registered document as admitted by the accused which clearly reflects he is the Correspondent of the said school. In that capacity, he issued two cheques i.e., cheque in question in this case and cheque in question in
C.C.No.151/2016. Both the cheques are issued with different dates 15.05.2015 and 31.05.2015. Both the cheques are dishonoured. Ex.P2 is the letter issued by accused in favour of original complainant and the same was admitted by accused with regard to issuance of cheques for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each. On perusal of Ex.P2, it was clear that he handedover the building and also admitted about arrears due by him with regard to Rs.1,00,000/- and also due with regard to current bill. The Learned Counsel for the accused contended that the rent is
Rs.7,000/- as per agreement, but the version of original complainant shows
Rs.6,000/- per month only. Which amount is correct is not properly explained by the complainant. The son of original complainant examined as PW2, but he failed to depose anything relating to the facts of the case and simply stated that his father only know every aspect and he do not know anything relating to the lease agreement and other related aspects. But, on observing the documents under Ex.D2 lease agreement and Ex.P2 certified copy of letter issued by accused proves the cheque in question and all these documents containing signatures of the accused only. Hence, this Court comes to conclusion that cheque in question issued by accused for discharge of legally entitled amount by the original complainant i.e., towards arrears of rent for running school in the premises of original complainant. The evidence adduced by the accused is also adds strength to the complainant’s version that he signed as one of the witness in Ex.P2 at SRO office wherein cheque handedover by accused to complainant. Even though accused contended about the aspect that he never acted as Correspondent to the school, but the document itself clearly reflects the said aspect that he is Correspondent of Sri Vidyavan the
Concept School. Man may lie but the document may not lie. In such a way,
Ex.D2 lease agreement filed by the accused itself shows that accused acted as
Correspondent of the school and issued cheques in question. Hence, accused is liable for punishment U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
20.In the result, the A1 and A2 found guilty under section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C for the offence Under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Sd/- S.Srinivas
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mummidivaram.
21. Heard A2 with regard to quantum of sentence who is representing A1 as
Correspondent of A1 school, for which he stated that he has not committed any offence. Out of grudge only original complainant filed this false case. Old aged mother depending on him and prays to show mercy.
22.On observing the submission of A2 and on perusing the material on record, as A2 involved in a financial matter, he is not entitled for any benefits under P.O Act or 360 of Cr.P.C. But on hearing the submission of A2, he is entitled for simple punishment to meet the ends of justice.
23.A1 being school represented by A2 being Correspondent sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence
U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and also liable to pay a sum of
Rs.50,000/- cheque amount. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The sentence in this case and the sentence in CC.No.151/2016 shall run concurrently.
24. A2 is informed that he is entitled to prefer an appeal for which he stated that he has got means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal.
25.Period of imprisonment already undergone by A2 if any shall be given set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C – NIL.
26.Out of fine amount of Rs.50,000/- total sum ordered to be given to P.W.2 towards compensation under section 357 of Cr.P.C and P.W.2 is entitled for said amount after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in
open Court this the 19th day of April, 2023.
Sd/- S.Srinivas
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mummidivaram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :
PROSECUTION :
P.W.1/03.01.2020 : Vetsa Surya Prakasarao P.W.2/12.12.2022 : Vetsa Veereswara Rao P.W.3/06.02.2023 : B.Atchi Raju
DEFENCE:
D.W.1/20.02.2023 : Kavuru Satyanarayana Murthy D.W.2/29.03.2023 : Koppisetti Suryanarayana @ Suribabu D.W.3/29.03.2023 : Chollangi V.R.S.V.Prasad
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:
PROSECUTION :
EX.P1 : Original Cheque bearing No.220106, dt.15.05.2015
EX.P2 : Certified copy of Ex.P2 in CC.No.151/2016 i.e., letter dt.17.06.2015 executed by A2 in favour of PW1
EX.P3 : Cheque Return memo issued by Andhra Bank, Mummidivaram dt.13.08.2015
EX.P4 : Copy of legal notice issued to the accused, dt.28.08.2015
EX.P5 : Refused registered cover of A1, dt.01.09.2015
EX.P6 : Refused registered cover of A2, dt.01.09.2015
EX.P7 : Statement of account relating to original complainant proving relevant transaction of Ex.P1
DEFENCE :
Ex.D1 : Bunch of rent receipts issued by 1st complainant for the year, 2014
Ex.D2 : Lease deed in between complainant and accused
Ex.D3 : Surrender lease deed executed in between complainant and accused
Ex.D4 : Alleged accused bank statement issued by SBI, Mummidivaram.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
– NIL--
Sd/- S.Srinivas
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mummidivaram.
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::
MUMMIDIVARAM.
C.C.No. 150/2016
Date of Offence : 15.05.2015
Date of Report or Complaint : 14.10.2015
Date of Appearance of accused : --
Date of release on bail : --
Date of Commencement of trial : 03.01.2020
Date of Close of trial : 29.03.2023
Date of sentence of Order : 19.04.2023
Explanation of delay and remarks : Due to non-production of witnesses by prosecution
Name of the Complainant :
1. Vetsa Surya Prakasa Rao (died)
2. Vetsa Veereswara Rao, S/o.Surya Prakasa Rao, Hindu, Male, age 47 years, LIC agent, R/o.Mummidivaram, Mummidivaram Mandal ( 2nd complainant was added as per order in Crl.M.P.566/2021, dt.09.09.2022)
Name of the Accused :
1. The Correspondent, Sree Vidyavan The Concept School, Sri Kavuru Satyanarayana Murty, S/o.Pallamsetti, Hindu, Male, age 50 years, C/o.Koppisetti Suribabu, Near Pallilpalem center, Mummidivaram, Mummidivaram Mandal.
2. Kavuru Satyanarayana Murty, S/o.Pallamsetti, Hindu, Male, age 50 years, C/o.Koppisetti Suribabu, Near Pallilpalem center, Mummidivaram, Mummidivaram Mandal.
Offence : U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not Guilty
Finding : Found Guilty
Sentence: In the result, the A1 and A2 found guilty under section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C for the offence Under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Heard A2 with regard to quantum of sentence who is representing A1 as
Correspondent of A1 school, for which he stated that he has not committed any offence. Out of grudge only original complainant filed this false case. Old aged mother depending on him and prays to show mercy. Hence, A1 being school represented by A2 being Correspondent sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act and also liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- cheque amount. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The sentence in this case and the sentence in CC.No.151/2016 shall run concurrently. A2 is informed that he is entitled to prefer an appeal for which he stated that he has got means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal. Period of imprisonment already undergone by A2 if any shall be given set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C – NIL. Out of fine amount of Rs.50,000/- total sum ordered to be given to P.W.2 towards compensation under section 357 of Cr.P.C and P.W.2 is entitled for said amount after expiry of appeal time.
Sd/- S.Srinivas
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mummidivaram.
Copies submitted to:
The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.