Ms Soundarya Kushanapalli

1 Judgment in C.C. No. 487 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT) AT NALGONDA

PRESENT: MS. K. SOUNDARYA,

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT NALGONDA

(Dated this the 20thday of April, 2026)

C.C.No. 487 of 2020

BETWEEN:

The State rep.by Station House Officer, Nalgonda Rural.

…Prosecution

AND

A1. Karnati Shankaramma, W/o. Lingaiah (Late), Age: 65 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H. No. 10-3 Narkatpally Now at Lakshmi Nilayam, Rajeevsheety

Nagar, Kharmanghat, Saroor Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

A2. Sakinala Dhanalakshmi, W/o. Pandu Rangaiah, Age: 43 Years, Occ: House

Wifr, R/o. H. No. 8-12-85, Plot NO. 91 Lakshmi Nilayam Rajeevshetty Nagar,

Kharmanghat, Saroor Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

…Accused no. 1 and 2.

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri V. Surendar Reddy, Advocate for the Accused No. 1 and 2 and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

01.This is a case filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nalgonda Rural PS in

Crime No. 97 of 2018 for the offences U/Secs. 120(b), 404, 420, 465, 468, 471

R/W 34 IPC.

2 Judgment in C.C. No. 487 of 2020

The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

02.It is the case of the prosecution that, on 05.05.2018 at 14:30 hours, the

LW-6 received a complaint of Sri Karnati Srinivas S/o Lingalah (Late), age 44 yrs, Caste: Vyshya, Occ: Business, r/o Narkatpalli village and Mandal which was endorsed by the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile)

Court at Nalgonda vide Lr. Dis. No. 996/2017 Dated. 18.12.2017, CF

No.1163/2017 Dated.14.12.2017. The contents of petition is that, the complainant's father Karnati Lingaiah has purchased a car i.e. Hundai Grand 1-10 Sportz CRDI BS4 vide registration No. AP-24-AX-8215. On 23.12.2016 his father died due to ill health and old age infirmities. After the death of his father on 02.05.2017, his mother Karnati Shankaramma W/o Lingaiah called his sister by name Sakinaala Dhana lakshmi with an intention to convert the property i.e., Hundai Grand 1-10 Sportz CRDI BS4 having registration No. AP- 24-AX-8215 which belongs to the deceased (father of complainant) by makingforged signatures of the deceased on Form-29, 30 & other relevant documents by misrepresenting to the RTA authorities Nalgonda and got transferred the said vehicle on the name of his mother Karnati Shankaramma and also obtained registration certificate submitting form No 29 under RTA rules containing forged signature of his father Karnati Lingaiah. On coming know the same, on 04.09.2017 he issued a legal notice to the concerned regional transport officer demanding to prosecute the accused for furnishing wrong information and introducing forged documents, but RTA no action has been initiated against his mother and sister. Hence, he approached Hon'ble 3 Judgment in C.C. No. 487 of 2020 court and filed a complaint requesting to take legal action against above said persons and do to justice.

03.Upon receiving the report, the SHO of PS Nalgonda Rural registered a case in Cr. No. 97 of 2018 for the offences U/Secs. 120(b), 404, 420, 468, 471

R/W 34 IPC.

04.During the course of investigation, the LW-6 has examined LWs 1 & 2 at olice Station and recorded their detailed statements and incorporated the same in part-II. On transfer of LW-6, the LW-7 took up further investigation of this case 22.07.2018

05.Cognizance for the offences punishable U/Sec. 120(b), 404, 420, 465, 468, 471 R/W 34 IPC was taken against accused no. 1 and 2 and summons were issued to them. Upon receiving the summons, the accused made their appearance and the copies were furnished as per Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

06.The accused no. 1 and 2 are examined under Sec. 239 Cr.P.C with reference to the allegations leveled against them and they denied the same.

Charges were framed for the offences under Secs. 120(b), 404, 420, 465, 468, 471 R/W 34 IPC and the same were read over and explained to the accused no.

1 and 2 in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked exhibit P1 to P15. Upon completion of prosecution evidences, the accused are examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material available against them from the evidences of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence, as such, the defence evidence has been closed.

08.Heard the arguments of both the learned counsels and framed the 4 Judgment in C.C. No. 487 of 2020 following point for determination.

“Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused

no. 1 and 2 are for the offences under secs- 120(b), 404, 420, 465, 468,

471 R/W 34 IPC against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt or

not?”

09. ARGUMENTS: -

During the course of arguments, Lr. APP contended to convict the accused basing on the incriminating material available from the evidences of prosecution.

10.On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused submitted to dispose off the case on merits.

DEPOSITIONS OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES:-

11. PW.1/K.Srinivas that, LW2 is his wife. A1 is his mother and A2 is his younger sister. His elder brother resides in USA and A2 is resides in Karmangat,

Hyderabad. He reside in Narketpally. In the year 2013 his father purchased a car Grand I10 Sporz model bearing No. AP24AX8215 and the said car was registered in the same year in the name of his father. On 23.12.2016 his father died. Thereafter property disputes arose in between them and his mother who was residing with him, shifted to his sister’s house. On 02.05.2017 A1 and A2 went to RTO office and concealed about the death of his father and forged the signature of his father and got registered the said car in the name of A1. He came to know about the same after some days when his mother came to reside with him in his house wherein he asked that he will use the said car. She stated that the said car is in her name and she refused to give him the said car for usage. On suspicious, he went to RTO office and on his application under RTI 5 Judgment in C.C. No. 487 of 2020

Act, he came to know that his father signature was forged on the documents.

Thereafter on 04.09.2017 he approached an Advocate on his advise and sent a legal notice to A1 and A2 and also to RTO office on the same day. Thereafter

RTO office never failed to take any action on the notice issued by him. Likewise

A1 and A2 also never sent any reply notice. Thereafter they filed a private complaint through his advocate before this court. Later the matter was referred to police station. Ex.P1 is his private complaint. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

6 Judgment in C.C. No. 487 of 2020

12. PW.2/K.Ramadevi deposed that, PW1 is her husband. A1 is her mother in law and A2 is her sister in law. She is residing in Narketpally at present and she is an house wife. In the year 2013 her father in law purchased a car Grand I10

Sporz model bearing No. AP24AX8215 and the said car was registered in the same year in the name of her father in law. On 23.12.2016 her father in law died. Thereafter property disputes arose in between them and her mother in law who was residing with them and got shifted to her sister in law’s house. On 23.08.2017 they went to RTO office in order to enquire about the registration of the said car wherein they came to know that on 02.05.2017, A1 and A2 got registered the said car in the name of A1. Thereafter on 04.09.2017 they approached an Advocate on his advise and sent a legal notice to A1 and A2 and also to RTO office on the same day. Thereafter RTO office never failed to take any action on the notice issued by him. Likewise A1 and A2 also never sent any reply notice. Thereafter they filed a private complaint through my advocate

before this court. Later the matter was referred to police station. The accused

no.1 and 2 forged the signature of her father in law and got the said car registered in their names and committed cheating on them. Police examined her and recorded her statement.

13. PW.3/T.Parvathamma deposed that, she know LW5. At about 6 years ago, police called her to the police station police and conducted confession cum seizure panchanama before her and LW5 wherein A1 and A2 confessed that they forged the signatures of their father and got registered a car on their name.

LW5 also endorsed signature on the panchanama. Ex.P5 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 and A2.

7 Judgment in C.C. No. 487 of 2020

14. PW.4/A.Rajashekar reddy deposed that, Previously he worked as Police SI police of police Nalgonda Rural from 19.06.2019 to 31.12.2021. On 05.05.2018 at about 1430 hours as per the court direction LW6 registered a case in

Cr.No.97/2018 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 404, 464, 47 R/W 34 IPC and

Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C and issued FIR. Ex.P6 is FIR and took up investigation.

During the Course of investigation LW6 examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and 2 at police station. On 22.07.2018 LW6 handed over the CD file to

LW7 for further investigation LW7 wherein has collected questioned documents i.e., transfer of ownership (form 29 and 30 and part-II form) and also collected an account opening form of bearing 864411532 and relevant documents from

Indian Bank, Yellareddy gudem branch, Narketpally. The form 29 and 30 is marked as Ex.P7 and the account opening form bearing no. 864411532 is marked as Ex.P8. Further LW7 has collected standard documents i.e., agreement paper dated: 01.12.2015 is Ex.P9, pan card, personal enrolment application is Ex.P10, R.C, Pattedar books, cash receipts from Sriram fertilizers and pesticides is Ex.P11, agreement is Ex.P12, STO declaration is Ex.P13,

Annexure-I is Ex.P14, Petition to MDO Office is Ex.P15. Further LW7 served notice under section. 91 Cr.P.C to the accused A1 and A2. On 29.04.2019 LW7 sent above documents to the director FSL for analysis and report vide file no.

SFSL(TS)/4347/DOC/76/2019 . LW3 as examined and furnished FSL report as the questioned signatures Q1 to Q3 do not tally with standard signatures marked S1 to S27. As per the expert opinion the signatures available on the question documents is forged. The said FSL report is marked as Ex.P16. On transfer of LW7 I received CD file from LW7 for further investigation and verified line of investigation which is in proper manner. On 15.11.2019 he served A1 8 Judgment in C.C. No. 487 of 2020 and A2 attended before police station and admitted their guilty. He summoned two mediators i.e., PW3 and LW4 and recorded confessional statement of

Accused no. 1 and 2 and seized one copy of registration certificate from A2.

Further I served 41-A (3) Cr.P.C notice to A1 and A2. After completion of entire investigation he filed the charge sheet.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCES:-

15. For bringing home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution is to prove the following essential ingredients for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC:-

1.Thevictimhasbeeninducedbytheaccused either fraudulently or dishonestly.

2.By reason of such inducement or deception the victim has done or omitted to do anything which the victim would not do or omit to do if the victim was not deceived or induced by the accused.

16. The Hon'ble Apex court of India in its expression

Mohd.Ibrahim Vs State of Bihar reported in (2009) 6 supreme

470 held that the following ingredients are essential for the offence of cheating:-

1. Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; 9 Judgment in C.C. No. 487 of 2020

2.Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and

3.Such act or omission causing or it likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, rep utation or property.

17. It is the version of Pw1 and 2 that the accused fraudulently got registered the car belonging to their father by forging the signature of her deceased father and refused to give back the car to Pw1.

18. To establish their version the prosecution got filed Exb P2, which is the death certificate of their father and exb P3 and P4 which ids the transaction details pertaining to the car bearing no. AP-24-

AX- 8215.

19. On perusal of cross examination of Pw1 and 2, apparently there are civil disputes between both the parties.

20. Also, the prosecution got examined Pw3, who is one of the panch witness for the confession cum seizure panchanama who sup- ported the version of prosecution by stating that the accused con- fessed before him that they forged the signatures of their father and got registered the said car in their name. However, in his cross exam- ination, he stated that no document was shown to him.

21. The evidence of Pw3 shows that even though the accused con- fessed about his crime before Pw3, but there is no whisper on seizure of any document from the possession of the accused.

10 Judgment in C.C. No. 487 of 2020

Further, the panchnama said to have taken place at about 6 years ago and it is not possible for the witness to identify the accused Nos.1 and 2 due to existence of long gap in between and his evidence was not worthy of any credence and the contention of the defence counsel that the panch witness might have prior acquaintance with the police cannot be brushed aside. In the face of this position when the accused Nos.1 and 2 before the court was not at all previously known to the witness who identified them and when they have not volunteered any type of description while making statement to the police and he has not been asked to participate in any test identification parade. The identification of the accused Nos.1 and 2 before the court was not worthy of any credence.

This court is fortified in saying so, on the authority of 

Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in Mohd. Abdul Afeez Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1983) 1SCC 143, wherein it was held that “in cases where name or description of an accused person is not given in the FIR, and no TIP was held, and the accused persons were not known earlier to the witnesses, then the identification made in court after about four months of the occurrence was not worthy of reliance and could not be taken as evidence connecting the accused and the crime.

22. Further, the prosecution got examined Pw4, who is an investigating officer in this case deposed his version in the lines of charge sheet. Although the prosecution got marked Exb P7 to P15, displaying the signature of the father of both the parties, further where

Exb P16 also shows that the signatures on the disputed documents does 11 Judgment in C.C. No. 487 of 2020 not tally, the prosecution failed to examine Lw3, who furnished the FSL report so as to confirm as to the genuineness of the above said documents. Non examination of Pw3 is hampering the case of the prosecution.

23. In order to attract an offence under section 465 IPC ,Its core ingredients require that a person makes a false document or electronic record (as defined in Section 464) with the intent to deceive, damage, or defraud, supporting a fraudulent claim or title.

Key ingredients required to establish an offense under Section 468

IPC: 

Forgery of a Document/Electronic Record: The accused must have  forged a document, electronic record, or part of it, as defined under Section 463 of the IPC. Making of a False Document: The accused created, signed, sealed, or  altered a document dishonestly or fraudulently, making it appear as if it was created by someone else or with authority, when it was not.

Intent to Cheat: The forgery must be committed specifically with the  intent that the forged document or electronic record be used for the purpose of cheating. Proof of Dishonesty: The act must be done with fraudulent or dishonest  intent, not just a, "false representation". 

24. From the evidences cited above, there is no confirmation of the le- gal sanctity of the documents filed by the prosecution. As stated above, the prosecution failed to examine the an Asst Director of FSL to confirm as to the contents of the document which proved fatal to the case of the prosecution.

25. Even if the contention of the Pw1 and 2 is taken for the sake of an argument, the prosecution is mainly relying on Exb P7 to P16 to show 12 Judgment in C.C. No. 487 of 2020 that the signature of the deceased father of Pw1 is forged, the disputed documents of the deceased which were sent to FSL belong to different dates.

26. It is a settled law that a persons signature naturally changes, evolves,or becomes less stable with age, illness, or over long period. while signatures of the same person may vary, the courts generally rely on ex- pert opinion to determine if these differences are due to natural aging or if they indicate forgery.

27. Here in this case, the prosecution although file Exb P16 relying on the expert opinion that the signatures available on the questioned docu- ments is forged, “the opinions never substitute proof”.

28. Also, Honble Supreme court had laid down in R. Sreenivasa

Rao vs State of AP that, signatures are inherently personal and mat evolve due to factors like age, health and education, such as differences in youth versus old age due to tremors.

29. Further in, Bina Gupta vs Kumkum Mittal, the honble Supreme

Court held that differences in the signature of an elderly person on a will, compared to earlier bank records can occur due to age-related changes, and these differences do not automatically invalidate the document.

30. Here, the signatures of the deceased are on the documents per- taining to different period of years and thus there is tendency of change of strokes in the signatures every year due to age related changes.

31. Hence it denotes that even if the prosecution filed Exb P16 that the questioned signature do not tally with the standard signatures, there is 13 Judgment in C.C. No. 487 of 2020 no proof of creating or forging any document by the accused in order to deceive Pw1 and 2 as specified under Section 420,465 and 468 IPC.

Therefore, it could be concluded that the evidence cited by the prosecu- tion dosent inspire the confidence of the court and thus the accused is entitled to be acquitted on benefit of doubt.

32. If such is the case, when the offence under section 420, 465 and 468 itself is not proved by the learned prosecution, then the question of the accused conspiring together to cheat Pw1 and 2 and using the above said sale document as forged one dosent arise. Hence the offence under section 120(b), and 471 also dosent arise.

33. In order to establish an offence under section 404 IPC, the key in- gredients include: (1) misappropriation of movable property, (2) the property was possessed by a deceased person, (3) dishonest intent, and (4) the offender not being legally entitled to it.

34. Basing on the evidence cited above, since there is no proof of forgery by the accused, the question of misappropriation of movable property dosent arise and the transaction in between the accused and her father appears to be genuine.

35.Basing on the discussion made above, this court feels that the evidences cited by the prosecution dosent inspire the confidence of this court and thus the prosecution failed to prove their version against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

36. In the result, the accused no. 1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence U/sec.120(b), 404, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC and they are acquit- ted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused if any shall stands 14 Judgment in C.C. No. 487 of 2020 canceled after appeal time is over. The unmarked case property returned to owner for interim custody shall after lapse of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW.1 : K. Srinivas NONE

PW.2 : K. Ramadevi

PW.3 : T. Parvathalu

PW.4 : A. Rajashekar Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P.1- is Report.NONE

Ex.P.2- is Original Death Certificate.

Ex.P.3- is Requisition letter form Public Information Officer, Dated: 23.08.2017.

Ex.P.4- is Registration transaction details of car bearing no. AP-24-AX-8215.

Ex.P3 and P4 are marked subject to objection that they are not filed along with the charge sheet.

Ex.P.5- is Signature of PW.3 on Confession cum seizure panchanama of A1

Ex.P.6- is FIR

Ex.P.7- is Form 29 and 30.

15 Judgment in C.C. No. 487 of 2020

Ex.P.8- is Account opening form bearing no. 864411532.

Ex.P.9- is Agreement paper, dated: 01.12.2015

Ex.P.10- is Peronsal enrolment application.

Ex.P.11- is Receipts from Sriram fertilizers and pesticides.

Ex.P.12- is Agreement

Ex.P.13- is STO declaration.

Ex.P.14- is Annexure-I

Ex.P.15- is Petition to MDO office.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda

CC. No. 374/2016 Pg. No: 1 of 11

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT NALGONDA

PRESENT: MS.K.SOUNDARYA,

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT NALGONDA

(Dated this the 17th day of April, 2026)

C.C. No. 374 of 2 016

Between:

Somidi Venkat Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Age: 34 Years, Occ: Mechanic, Sai Ram Motors, Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda, R/o. Chandanapally Village, Nalgonda Town and District.

...Complainant.

A N D

Vasa Kasiviswanath, S/o. Rama Krishnaiah, Age: 30 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 7-3-341, Nehrugunj, Line Wada Street, Nalgonda Town and District.

...Accused.

This case has come up before me on 06.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Jawahar Lal, Learned counsel on behalf of the complainant and of Sri J. Bhaskar Reddy, Learned counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

//JUDGMENT//

1.This complaint is filed by the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable

Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as N.I. ACT) against the accused.

2.It is averred on behalf of complainant that the accused executed a promissory note dated 20.05.2013 so also issued a cheque bearing no.

041954, dated 23.03.2015 for a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- in favor of the complainant towards repayment of legally enforceable debt. It is averred that upon presentation, at the bank of complainant, the cheque/Ex.P2 got dishonored for the reason that “Funds were insufficient” in the accused

CC. No. 374/2016 Pg. No: 2 of 11

account. Thus, obligating the complainant to knock the doors of this court and seek proper remedy as per the law in force.

3.Upon the present complaint being filed and after taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 and 142 of NI Act accused has summoned and thereafter, substance of accusation under section 251 Cr.P.C., read over and explained to the accused in his language to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Elaborate and sufficient opportunity was granted to both parties to lead evidence.

4.The Complainant in support of his case examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 documents and also examined PW.2 and

PW.3 on behalf of complainant and after the complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined as per legislative mandate of Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating material in the evidence of complainant was put to the accused and she was given sufficient opportunity to explain herself. He denied the incriminating material and also chose to lead defence evidence and examined himself as DW1 as per section 315 of Cr.P.C.

5.Heard the rival submissions of both counsel and perused the material available on record.

6. The point for consideration is:

“Whether the Complainant is able to bring home the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act ?”

POINT:

7.For the sake of convenience, I deem it appropriate to take on record the gist of testimonies of the complainant and the defence witness:

CC. No. 374/2016 Pg. No: 3 of 11

7.1.(i) PW1, is the complainant himself who in his examination in chief that he and the accused are well known to each other and due to this acquaintance, on 20-05-2013, the accused sought for a loan of Rs 200000 for his legal and personal necessities and accordingly, the complainant paid the amount to the accused on the same date and the accused orally promised to repay the same and upon the insistence of the complainant, the accused issued a cheque for Rs 2,80,000 vide cheque no. 041954

dated 23-03-2015 drawn on The ICICI Bank Limited, Nalgonda

branch ,who in turn under the intimation to the accused, upon presentation of the above said cheque in Indian Overseas bank Nalgonda

Branch, Dated 10-07-2020, the said cheque was returned for insufficient funds on 26-03-2015 . The said acts of accused made him to file this case for an offence under section 138 of NI act.

7.2.In his cross-examination before the court the complainant he stated that he has acquaintance with the accused through a by name A.Ravinder

Reddy since 20 years he dosent have any knowledge about the personal affairs and family of the accused. He further revealed that there was no visits between them except for the time of the transaction. He further denied all the suggestions put to him by the counsel for accused.

7.3. To prove his case, the complainant also got examined Pw2 and 3, who are the witness to the transaction between both the parties. He also corroborated to the version of the complainant/ pw1 in toto.

7.4. Pw2 and 3 in their cross examination, admitted that the signature of the accused on Exv P1 and P2 are different. they further denied all the

CC. No. 374/2016 Pg. No: 4 of 11

suggestions put to him by the counsel for accused. Further, Pw3 in his cross examination stated that he knows accused since 2010.

7.5. The accused on the other hand got himself examined as Dw1 and stated that in the year 2013-14, he borrowed a loan amount of Rs 1,50,000/- from M/S Dharani finance, nalgonda consisting of six partners and at the time of obtaining loan, the said Dharani Finance obtained some blank signed promissory notesand cheque in their favour and subsequently, he cleared of the loan amount to the said M/S Dharani finance and he demamded the said Dharani Finance to return his signed blank documents, but the said Dharani Finance dodged the matter on one pretext or the other without returning the same and thereafter, a quarrel took place between him and Dharani Finance. Further that Pw3 was one of the partners in M/S dharani Finance and he along with the complainant colluded together and created false promissory note in their favour by forging his signature on Exb P1. Further that he was not the resident of the given address by the complainant .

Appreciation of evidence:

8.Before appreciating the evidence on record, let relevant position of law be discussed first.

To prove the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act requirements are:

(i) There is a legally enforceable debt and the drawer of the cheque issued the cheque to satisfy part or whole of the legally enforceable debt.

(ii) The cheque so issued has been returned due to insufficiency of funds

(iii) The drawer of the cheque failed to repay the cheque amount with in statutory period even after receipt of statutory notice issued to him with in stipulated period.

CC. No. 374/2016 Pg. No: 5 of 11

8.1. The first and foremost ingredient to be proved by complainant is existence of legally enforceable debt and that the cheque was issued for discharge of the said debt. Here, although the accused denied that the signature on Exb P1 and P2 dosent belong to him, no steps were taken by the accused to establish his contention. His only contention was his signatures were misused and forged . Hence it is deemed to be proved by complainant without any further proof and the presumptions under

Section 118 and 139 N.I. Act can be drawn in favor of him that Ex.P2 was drawn for consideration and issued to discharge the legally enforceable debt.

8.2.The second ingredient is that the cheque in question must be dishonored. On perusal of Ex.P3 i.e., cheque return memo, it clearly indicates that cheque was returned as funds were insufficient in the account of accused. Thus this point is also proved by the complainant.

8.3.The third ingredient is that thedrawer of the cheque failed to repay the cheque amount with in statutory period even after receipt of statutory notice issued to him with in stipulated period. On perusal of the Exhibits

P1 to P6 it clearly establishes that the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is made out. hence the third ingredient is also proved by the complainant.

Hence the onus shifts to the accused to rebut the same.

8.4.Coming to the plea taken by the accused, the above said contention is not supported by any documentary proof. From the facts arising in this case and the nature of the rival contentions as stated above, it appears that although the signature of the accused on on the documents at

Exhibits P1 and P2 is disputed, no steps were taken by the accused that

CC. No. 374/2016 Pg. No: 6 of 11

the signatures on Exb P1 and P2 does not belong to him. Although Pw1 to 3 admitted in their cross examinations that the signatures of the accused on Exb P1 and P2 are different, mere oral evidence would not substantiate the claim of the accused that the signatures on Exb P1 and P2 does not belong to the accused. unless they are corroborated with an ample exper evidence. If that be the position, a presumption would arise under Section 139 in favor of the complainant who was the holder of the cheque.. Hence, this plea of accused cannot be considered. Also the facts of the present case and the facts of the decision relied by the accused are at a different footing.

8.5.Another defence taken by the counsel for accused is that the complainant filled the blank cheque issued by him and misused them and the writings in Ex P1 and .P2 belongs to the complainant.

8.6. Section 20 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, states that

when a person signs and delivers blank cheque to another, he

thereby gives prima-facie authority to holder thereof to make or

complete it for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the

amount covered by stamp. After combined reading of said Sections 20 and 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, it appears that to made out an offence in question against the accused, the necessary ingredient is that the cheque should be drawn on the account of the drawer and it is immaterial whether the contents therein are in whose handwriting as per section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After perusal of said section 20 it appears that the drawer of a cheque can issue blank cheque to other person and by his said act he gives an authority to said concern person to

CC. No. 374/2016 Pg. No: 7 of 11

fill up it contents. It enables the holder of the cheque to fill up the incomplete cheque.

9.In the case of Bir Singh V. Mukesh Kumar, AIR 2019 SC 2446,

Hon’ble Apex Court held in para no. 42 that - “In the absence of any

finding that the cheque in question was not signed by the

respondent-accused or not voluntarily made over to the payee and in

the absence of any evidence with regard to the circumstances in

which a blank signed cheque had been given to the appellant-

complainant, it may reasonably be presumed that the cheque was

filled in by the appellant-complainant being the payee in the

presence of the respondent-accused being the drawer, at his request

and/or with his acquiescence. The subsequent filling in of an unfilled

signed cheque is not an alteration. There was no change in the

amount of the cheque, its date or the name of the payee. The High

Court ought not to have acquitted the respondent-accused of the

charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.” 9.1.Moreover no law mandates under Negotiable Instrument Act that the entire body of cheque has to be written by the drawer of the cheque. The body of the cheque can be written by anybody and what that matters is signatures of drawer. So, when such is the case, the question of disputing the writing does not arise when the accused admits his signatures on

Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Under section 139 there is a presumption that a cheque presented is for a discharge of the liability of debt either partially or wholly.

And until and unless the respondent purposes any purpose other than the discharge of liability, it shall be presumed under section 138. The accused

CC. No. 374/2016 Pg. No: 8 of 11

person cannot merely escape by saying it was only given as security and the day cheque was issued there was no liability towards the person. At this arena, that the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that cheque bearing no. 625688 are in the custody of the accused and the said cheque may be utilized afterwards cannot be brushed aside.

9.2. Adding to it, it is the contention of the accused that the complainant along with Pw2 and 3 misused the cheque and promissory notegiven to him by the accused but no steps were taken by the accused to demand the return of such cheque . Mere oral assertion that the accused demanded for return of the said cheque is no way helpful for the defence of the accused. The accused herself agreed that she didn't lodge any police report or any notice to demand return of cheque.

9.3.The crux of the entire cross-examination of PW1 is that the complainant never lent any amount as on the said date to the accused and the accused never issued Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant. When once it is the contention of accused , it is for the accused to explain as to how his cheque entered into the hands of the complainant. Here from the facts on hand, there is no such explanation from the accused as to how the cheque has entered into the hands of complainant.

9.4. The accused didn't file a piece of paper to show that the cheque given to the M/G Dharani Finance was towards security. In this arena, the contention of learned counsel for the complainant that the accused borrowed Rs 2 lakhs from the complainant for his personal necessity to discharge of legally enforceable debt cannot be brushed aside.

CC. No. 374/2016 Pg. No: 9 of 11

10.The law is well settled that when once the execution of the cheque is proved, Section 139 of N.I. Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. However, the said presumption is rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. From the above facts on hand, except putting some suggestions to the complainant, the accused did not put forth any probable defence before this court to prove his contentions. Therefore the statutory presumption under Section 139 of NI Act remained unrebutted and is sustained.

10.1. For rebuttal of the presumptions of law, mere existence of doubts in the case of the complainant is not sufficient and the doubts have to be reasonable in nature. The above discussed facts do not render the defence of the accused as plausible and on the other hand the case of the complainant and presumption raised therein have remained intact and hence are entitled to be believed. It is proved that the cheque in question was presented for encashment within a prescribed period and statutory requirement for the legal notice was also complied within the prescribed time.

10.2. To conclude, all the mandatory requirement as postulated under

Section 138 of N.I. Act are found to be proved on behalf of the complainant.

In view of the entire discussion, herein above, the facts and the circumstances of the present case, this court is of the considered opinion that the case of complainant has been proved beyond the shadows of reasonable doubt.

CC. No. 374/2016 Pg. No: 10 of 11

11.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly the accused is convicted for the same under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation by my stenographer gr.III and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT, NALGONDA.

Quantum of Sentence:

12.The accused is heard on quantum of sentence and is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him.

He pleaded mercy stating that he is sole bread winner of his family purely dependent on him. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and plea of accused, though I do not consider that accused is entitled for the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, a lenient view is warranted because of other attending circumstances. Hence accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (Six) months and to pay compensation to the complainant under Section 357 Cr.P.C. for a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Thousand only) which is equivalent to the cheque amount/Ex.P2 within a period of two months from today failing which the accused shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days more. Since no property is seized in this case there is no order as to case property.

13.The Accused is informed about the forum of appeal and time limit for preferring appeal. He is also apprised of his right to free legal aid in appeal

CC. No. 374/2016 Pg. No: 11 of 11

through legal services authority. He reported he is having means to engage counsel. Office is hereby directed to furnish a copy of the judgment to the accused forthwith free of cost and to receive the acknowledgment of same from him.

Typed to dictation by my stenographer gr.III and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT, NALGONDA.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:

PW1: S. Venkat Reddy/Complainant PW2: Dasari Ravi PW3: A. Ravinder Reddy

For Accused:

DW1: V. Vishwanadam

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

Ex.P1: Is Original demand promissory note, dated: 20.05.2013. Ex.P2: Is Original Cheque No. 041954, dated: 23.03.2015 drawn on ICICI Bank, Nalgonda Branch. Ex.P3: Is Cheque Return Memo, dated: 26.03.2015. Ex.P4: Is Office copy of the legal notice, dated: 10.04.2015. Ex.P5: Is Postal Receipt, dated: 11.04.2015. Ex.P6: Is Served Ack. Due Card, Dated: 11.04.2015.

For Accused:

-NIL-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT, NALGONDA.

1 Judgment in C.C. No. 218 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT) AT NALGONDA

PRESENT: MS. K. SOUNDARYA,

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT NALGONDA

(Dated this the 17thday of April, 2026) C.C.No. 218 of 2021

BETWEEN:

The State rep.by Station House Officer, Chandur.

…Prosecution

AND

A1. Bande Sathyanarayana @ Sathish, S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 28 Years, Occ: Mositure

Assistant CCI, Bangarigadda, R/o. H. No. 2-97/27, Kaman Village, Wankidi Mandal,

Asifabad Komaram Beem District.

A2. Palle Venkatesham, S/o. Kashaiah, Age: 42 Years, Occ: Business & Sarpanch of

Bangarigadda Village, N/o. Bangarigadda Village, Chandur Mandal and Plot No. 10,

Road No. 3, Central Bank Colony, L.B Nagar, KV Rangareddy District.

A3. Adi Shekar, S/o. Adi Narsimha, Age: 40 Years, Occ: Cotton Business & Tractor

Driver, R/o. H. No. 4-118, Bangarigadda Village, Chandur Mandal.

A4. Boyapalli Venkataiah @ Patel Venkanna, S/o. Jangaiah, Age: 40 Years, Occ:

Business, R/o. H. No. 1-69, Bangarigadda Village, Chandur Mandal.

A5. Mukkamala Venkanna, S/o. Mukkammala Anjaiah, Age: 42 Years, Occ:

Agriculture & Cotton Business, R/o. H. No. 1-75, Pullemla Village, Chandur

Mandal.

A6. Dasari Narayana, S/o. Dasari Pedda Anjaiah, Age: 42 Years, Occ: Toddy tapper,

R/o. H. No. 2-98, Donipamula Village, Chandur Mandal.

…Accused no. 1 to 6.

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of learned 2 Judgment in C.C. No. 218 of 2021

Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri B. Ravi, Advocate for the Accused No.

1 to 6 and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

01.This is a case filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chandur PS in Crime No.

172 of 2020 for the offences U/Secs. 120(b), 420, 409 R/W 34 IPC.

The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

02.It is the case of the prosecution that, on 30-12-2020 at about 15.10 hours, the complainant Sudagani Sinivas Goud, S/o Jaya Ramulu, age: 40 years, caste:

Goud, Occ: Agriculture officer- Munugode Mandal, r/o Plot. No. 302, V.T. Colony,

Srivenkateshwara apartments, Nalgonda. No H.NO. 13-7, Chandepally Village,

Motakondur Mandal, Yadadri District came to Police Station, Chandur and lodged a petition and stating that he is the member of joint task force team consisting ofSri.D.Raju, SIP, Task Force, Nalgonda. Sri. B. Madhu Babu, Supervisor,

Agricultural Marketing, Nalgonda. Constituted by the Sri V. Chandra Shekar,

Additional District Collector (Revenue), Nalgonda through his proceeding Order vide

Lr. No. DMO/(N)/SMA/Cotton/95/2020, Dt: 23.12.2020. Having received a credible information about the some irregularities committed by the CCI Employee Bande

Sathyanarayana @ Sathish with the active connivance of Palle Venkatesham who is the sarpanch of Bangarigadda village and to cheat the farmers also introduced Adhi

Shekar, Boyapally Venkanna who are the transporters indulged for the procurement of cotton from the farmers of the different villages of Chandur mandal and other neighbouring villages of other mandals who are cultivating the cotton in their fields 3 Judgment in C.C. No. 218 of 2021 by transporting the cotton loads in the tractors by saying deceitful words to the innocent farmers by advancing money to them. Thereupon, the above persons were gaining trust of the farmers and making them to believe to hand over the money to them in order to gain wrongfully and misappropriated the money which has to actually be credited in to the accounts of the farmers by the CCI and the very purpose of the giving minimum support price to the cotton farmers in getting defeated. On that, the joint Task Force team visited CCICentre at Bangarigadda village and caused discrete enquiry and found Bande Satyanarayana @ Sathish who was the in charge of CCI centre in place of CPO at Bangarigadde village conspired with Palle Venkatesham Surpanch of Bangarigadda village who introduced Adhi

Shekar and Boyapally Venkanna to purchase the cotton without the intervention of the farmers and if the farmer who directly came to the CCI centre to sell their cotton, the Bande Satyanarayana @ Sathish will not allow the farmers to sell their cotton to the CCI directly and create hurdles to the farmerx and used to instigate the farmer, to come along with Palle Venkatesham, Adhi Shekar and Beyapally

Venkanna for selling of their cotton to the CCI and in that connection Palle

Venkatesham, Adhi Shekar and Boyapally Venkanna who were acting as agents on behalf of the farmers, made oral agreement to receive amounts from the farmers for their commission after receiving the sale amount which was credited in their accounts by the CCI. The Sathish who is paid remuneration by the government, indulged in corrupt practices and got the huge amounts from the Venkatesham,

Shekar and Venkanna and others for helping them in connection with the cotton loads which was transported by them and all the above persons and other persons involved in transportation of cotton to CCI without the intervention of farmers and 4 Judgment in C.C. No. 218 of 2021 directly gained the amounts and thereupon cheated the innocent farmers and caused wrongful loss to the government. Therefore, he requested to take necessary legal action against the above persons according to law.

03.Upon receiving the report, the SHO of PS Chandur registered a case in Cr.

No. 172 of 2020 for the offences U/Secs. 120(b), 420, 409 R/W 34 IPC.

04.During the course of investigation, LW12 has examined and recorded the statement of LWs1 to 3 who are the Govt. employees and the inspection team in order to curb the irregularities by procurement of cotton at the cotton mills in

Nalgonda district in detail in Part-II CDs. Later, visited the Bangarigadda Village where caused discreet and detail enquiry about the occurrence of offence and examined and recorded the statements of LWs 4 & 5 who are the victims (farmers) in detail in Part-II CDs. Basing on the statements of witness the prima facie of offence was made out against the accused A-1 to A-6.

05.Cognizance for the offences punishable U/Sec. 120(b), 420, 409 R/W 34 IPC was taken against accused no. 1 to 6 and summons were issued to them. Upon receiving the summons, the accused made their appearance and the copies were furnished as per Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

06.The accused no. 1 to 6 are examined under Sec. 239 Cr.P.C with reference to the allegations leveled against them and they denied the same. Charges were framed for the offences under Secs. 120(b), 420, 409 R/W 34 IPC and the same were read over and explained to the accused no. 1 to 6 in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.10 and got marked exhibit P1 to P10. Upon completion of prosecution evidences, the 5 Judgment in C.C. No. 218 of 2021 accused are examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material available against them from the evidences of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence, as such, the defence evidence has been closed.

08.Heard the arguments of both the learned counsels and framed the following point for determination.

“Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused no. 1 to 6 are for the offences under secs- 120(b), 420, 409 R/W 34 IPC against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt or not?”

09. ARGUMENTS: -

During the course of arguments, Lr. APP contended to convict the accused basing on the incriminating material available from the evidences of prosecution.

10.On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused submitted to dispose off the case on merits.

DEPOSITIONS OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES:-

11. PW.1/S.Srinivas deposed that, Previously he worked as an agriculture officer,

Munugode from October, 2018 to September 2024. He know LW2 to 7. On 23.12.2020 that the joint collector arrange a task force team for entire district and he was an agriculture officer in that team and he was accompanied by district metrology officer Rama Krishna, CI task force Nageshwar rao, SI task force D.

Raju/LW2 and our agriculture marketing supervisor Madhu Babu/LW3 with an object to check whether the cotton farmers are acquiring minimum support price for their produce in cotton corporation of India mills and also to check the non involvement of brokers in the sale of cotton. On 30.12.2020 we received credible 6 Judgment in C.C. No. 218 of 2021 information that the brokers and CCI members were causing trouble to the cotton farmers the cotton samples are exposed to moisture and the farmers are made to wait for days together for drying of the said moisture. At that time myself along with LW2,LW3 went to the spot and enquired the farmers and LW5, LW4 and LW6 were one of the farmers amongst the group of farmers. As per their information the farmers were asked by A1 to approach A2 to A6 belonging to Bangarigadda village and from them their cotton shall be sold. Accordingly A1 insisted other farmers also to sell their cotton through A2 to A6. Basing on the same he lodged report

before police station. Ex.P1 is his report. Police examined him and recorded his

statement.

12. PW.2/B.Madhu Babu deposed that Previously he worked as an supervisor in agriculture marketing at Nalgonda from 2011 to 2022. He know LW2, 4 and 5 and

PW1 and so also accused. On 23.12.2020 the joint collector arranged a task force team for entire district and he was a Market supervisor in that team and he accompanied by district metrology officer Rama Krishna, CI task force Nageshwar rao, SI task force D. Raju/LW2 and PW1 with an object to check whether the cotton farmers are acquiring minimum support price for their produce in cotton corporation of India mills and also to check the non involvement of brokers in the sale of cotton. On 30.12.2020 they received credible information that the brokers and CCI members were causing trouble to the cotton farmers the cotton samples are exposed to moisture and the farmers are made to wait for days together for drying of the said moisture. At that time himself along with LW2 and PW1 went to the spot and enquired the farmers. As per their information the farmers stated that

A1 told them that the cotton was not having moisture but still their brokers i.e., 7 Judgment in C.C. No. 218 of 2021

A2 to A6 were acquiring cotton by taking Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- as a ransom and they were sending cotton to A1. Thereafter, the said cotton was being loaded by A1. The farmers were asked by A1 to approach A2 to A6 belonging to

Bangarigadda village and from them their cotton shall be sold. Accordingly A1 insisted other farmers also to sell their cotton through A2 to A6. Basing on the same he lodged report before police station. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

13. PW.8/D.Raju deposed that, Previously he worked as a SI of police Nalgonda

Task force from 09.06.2020 to 15.01.2021. He know PW1 to 6. On 23.12.2020 the

Addl. collector arranged a task force team for entire district and in that team and

PW1 was accompanied by district metrology officer Rama Krishna, CI task force

Nageshwar rao, himself and their agriculture marketing supervisor Madhu

Babu/LW3 with an object to check whether the cotton farmers are acquiring minimum support price for their produce in cotton corporation of India mills and also to check the non involvement of brokers in the sale of cotton vide letter No.

DMO(n)/SMA/cotton/95/2020, dated 23.12.2020. On 30.12.2020 they received credible information that the brokers and CCI members were causing trouble to the cotton farmers the cotton samples are exposed to moisture and the farmers are made to wait for days together for drying of the said moisture and CCI members were claiming Rs. 2,000/- to 3,000/- for sale of cotton from the farmers. At that time myself along with PW1 and PW2 went to the spot and enquired the farmers and PW3 to PW6 were one of the farmers amongst the group of farmers. As per their information the farmers were asked by A1 to approach A2 to A6 belonging to

Bangarigadda village and from them their cotton shall be sold on payment of Rs.

8 Judgment in C.C. No. 218 of 2021 2,000/- to 3,000/- to the CCI members. The said amount shall be deposited in the account of A1 to A6. Accordingly A1 insisted other farmers also to sell their cotton through A2 to A6. Basing on the same PW1 and myself along with PW2 lodged report before police station. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCES:-

14. Upon perusing the entire material available on record, except for PW1 and 2, none of the witnesses supported the version of prosecution.

15. As per their version, the accused who are the members of the CCI were causing trouble to the ,cotton farmers namely Pw3 to 6 wherein A1 by collecting ransom from them for approval and sale of their cotton in an open market.

16.PW1 and 2 in their cross examination admitted that the CCI has appointed one cotton purchase officer i.e., Pw7 and he enters the moisture content and the minimum support price of cotton by analyzing the moisture content over cotton through a machine.

17. However, Pw3 to 6 who are the eye witnesses and panch witnesses to this case surprisingly resiled from their earlier statements made to the police and thus they were treated hostile by the learned prosecution.

18. In the current case on hand, Pw3 to 6 have turned hostile and learned APP has conducted a lengthy cross examination but nothing could be elicited in favour of the prosecution and as such, there is no corroboration from any corner.

19. Further Pw7 who was the commercial officer of CCI,Bangarigadda, Munugode, stated that in the year 2020, one task team pertaining to monitoring of cotton came to Manjith fiber cotton mill and took A1 for enquiry and other than that he do not know anything about this case, and thus he surprisingly resiled from his 9 Judgment in C.C. No. 218 of 2021 statement made before police and thus they were turned hostile by the learned prosecution.

20.Further PW.9 and 10 who are the panch witness for the confession cum recovery panchnama of the accused were also treated hostile by the learned prosecution. Hence no confession and seizure proved.

21. Aading to it, the prosecution had failed to examine an invertigating officer in this case. Non examination of investigating oddicer is hampering the case of the prosecution.

22. Hence in view of the above stated discussion there is no piece of evidence in favor of the prosecution to show that the accused had committed the offence.

Hence, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec. 120(b) ,420 ,409 IPC and they are entitled for acquittal.

23. In the result, the accused no. 1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sec – 120(b), 420, 409 R/W 34 IPC and they are acquitted under sec – 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused if any shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over. The unmarked case property if any shall hereby stand de- stroyed after the lapse of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda 10 Judgment in C.C. No. 218 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW.1 : S. Srinivas NONE

PW.2 : B. Madhu Babu

PW.3 : J. Ramulu

PW.4 : P. Shekar

PW.5 : V. Praveen

PW.6 : G. Pulla Reddy

PW.7 : Gajendra Kaiwad

PW.8 : D. Raju

PW.9 : V. Lingaiah

PW.10 : B. Kasim

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P.1- is Private Complaint, dated: 14.02.2017.NONE

Ex.P.2- is 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.3.

Ex.P.3- is 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.4.

Ex.P.4- is 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.5.

Ex.P.5- is 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.6.

Ex.P.6- is 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.7.

Ex.P.7- is Signature of PW.9 on scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P.8- is Signature of PW.9 on Rough Sketch.

Ex.P.9- is Signature of PW.10 on scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P.10- is Signature of PW.10 on Rough Sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda

1 Judgment in C.C. No. 606 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT) AT NALGONDA

PRESENT: MS. K. SOUNDARYA,

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT NALGONDA

(Dated this the 20thday of April, 2026)

C.C.No. 606 of 2016

BETWEEN: The State rep.by Station House Officer, Nalgonda Rural.

…Prosecution

AND

A1. Vidyam Lakshminarayana, S/o. Thatha Rao, Age: 36 Years, Occ: Business,

R/o. Neetithippa village of Mogaltur Mandal of West Godavari District.

…Accused no. 1.

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri A. Venkat Reddy, Advocate for the Accused No. 1 and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

01.This is a case filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nalgonda Rural PS in

Crime No. 71 of 2016 for the offences U/Secs. 420, 506 IPC.

The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

02.It is the case of the prosecution that, on 15.04.2016 at 15.00 hours the complainant Kasarla Madhan Reddy s/o Venkatram reddy r/o Kanchanapally village of Nalgonda mandal came to police Station and lodged a telugu written complaint in which he stated that, he has made a fish pond in his agricultural land and growing the fish in the said pond. In order to sell the fishes, he contacted with one Devarapally Madhu s/o Veera Venkat Rao r/o 2 Judgment in C.C. No. 606 of 2016

Machilipatnam town (Phone No. 9966446554) who had given cell phone number of Vidyam Laxminarayana s/o Thatha Rao r/o near Vinayaka temple, Neeti thippa, Mogalthuru (v) of West Godavari dist (phone No 9949210458). There, he consulted Vidyam Laxminarayana and settled the deal with him for Rs. 65/- per KG and agreed to sale him total 3,758 KGs of fish. On 28.02.2016 the said

Laxminarayana sent one Kothapally Ramesh H. No. 9-12/1 Kothacolony,

Gollavanithippa (Phone No. 9533722244) for taking the fishes. Accordingly, he handed over the fishes to Ramesh. At that time he promised to arrange the said amount at Kukatpally Hyderabad. But he failed to do so. Since then, they asked him for amount on phone but the said Laxminarayana dragged the matter with one and the other reason. On 28.02.2016 he credited an amount of Rs.

25,000/-in the bank account of his son by name Kasarla Vinay Reddy and he has to pay an amount of Rs. 2,18,750/- When he forced to pay the amount he (Laxminarayana) threatened him with fear of death. Hence, he requested to take legal action against the above persons according to law.

03.Upon receiving the report, the SHO of PS Nalgonda Rural registered a case in Cr. No. 71 of 2016 for the offences U/Secs. 420, 506 IPC.

04.During the course of investigation, prepared FIRs and dispatched to all concerned officers, examined and recorded the statements of LWs- 1 & 2 at

Police Station in C.D. part-II. Further visited the scene of offence situated at the outskirts of Kanchanapally village, and caused enquiries about the offence, examined and recorded the statements of LWs 3 and 4 in CD part-II. Conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators LWs 5 and 6 and drawn a rough sketch of the scene.

05.Cognizance for the offences punishable U/Sec. 420, 506 IPC was taken 3 Judgment in C.C. No. 606 of 2016 against accused no. 1 and summons were issued to him. Upon receiving the summons, the accused made his appearance and the copies were furnished as per Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

06.The accused no. 1 is examined under Sec. 239 Cr.P.C with reference to the allegations leveled against him and he denied the same. Charges were framed for the offences under Secs. 420, 506 IPC and the same were read over and explained to the accused no. 1 in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked exhibit P1 to P5. Upon completion of prosecution evidences, the accused is examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material available against him from the evidences of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence, as such, the defence evidence has been closed.

08.Heard the arguments of both the learned counsels and framed the following point for determination.

“Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused

no. 1 is for the offences under secs- 420, 506 IPC against the accused

beyond any reasonable doubt or not?”

09. ARGUMENTS: -

During the course of arguments, Lr. APP contended to convict the accused basing on the incriminating material available from the evidences of prosecution.

10.On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused submitted to dispose off the case on merits.

4 Judgment in C.C. No. 606 of 2016

DEPOSITIONS OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES:-

11. PW.1/K.Madan Reddy that,he know LW2 to 4 and so also accused. He have a fish pond at Kanchanapally covered under Ac. 20.00 gts of land under sy.no.487, 488, 489 and 490. He got acquaintance with A1 through one

Devarapally Madhu who helped him in sale of his fish on the pond. Accordingly

A1 agreed to purchase his fish and he stated that he will sent someone to his pond for purchase of the fish. Accordingly he sent one Kothapally Ramesh on 08.02.2016 to his pond on his Bolero. He then gave 3,758 kgs of fish to A2 for

Rs. 65/- per kg. A1 stated that he will send me the amount online. A2 then took my fish and left from my pond. After some days upon my insistence A1 transferred Rs.25,000/- to my son/Vinay reddy/LW2 account. A1 was due to remaining amount of Rs. 2,18,000/-. When he demanded for repayment from

A1, he kept dodging the matter on one pretext or the other. Later he started threatening to kill him. Thereafter on 15.04.2016 he lodged report before police station. Ex.P1 is his report. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

12. PW.2/K.Vinay reddy deposed that, PW1 is his father. He know LW3 and 4 and so also accused. They have a fish pond at Kanchanapally covered under Ac.

6.00 gts of land under sy.no.492,493 and 489. His father raised fishpond under the land to an extent of Ac.1.20 gts at Kanchanapaly village. He got acquaintance with A1 through one Devarapally Madhu who helped him in sale of his fish on the pond. Accordingly A1 agreed to purchase his fish and he stated that he will sent someone to his pond for purchase of the fish.

Accordingly he send one Kothapally Ramesh on 08.02.2016 to his pond on his

Bolero. He then gave 3,758 kgs of fish to A2 for Rs. 65/- per kg. A1 stated that he will send me the amount online. A2 then took his fish and left from his 5 Judgment in C.C. No. 606 of 2016 pond. After some days upon our insistence A1 transferred Rs.25,000/- to his account. A1 was due to remaining amount of Rs. 2,15,000/-. When they demanded for repayment from A1, he kept dodging the matter on one pretext or the other. Later he started threatening to kill him. Thereafter on 15.04.2016 he lodged report before police station. Thereafter upon negotiation, A1 gave

Rs.50,000/- to them in the form of cash. He then requested two months time to pay Rs. 60,000/- towards another part payment. Thereafter he went absconding. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

13. PW.3/M.Israil deposed that, he know PW1,PW2 and LW3 and so also accused. PW1 has a fish pond in their village. In the month of February, 2016 his fish was loaded in two Bolero vehicles. A2 took the said fishes on his Bolero and thereafter A1 who was the purchaser failed to repay the amount to PW1.

The fish were weighing about 3,000 kgs. Thereafter PW1 lodged report before police station. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

14. PW.4/G.Krishnaiah deposed that, he know PW1 to 3 and so also accused.

PW1 has a fish pond in their village on his land to an extent of Ac.6.00 gts. On 08.02.2016 his fish was being loaded in two Bolero vehicles. Therefore PW1 called him and PW3 to his pond and accordingly we went to the spot and stayed there till the loading of fish. A2 took the said fishes on his Bolero and thereafter A1 who was the purchaser failed to repay the amount to PW1. The fish were weighing about 3,000 kgs. Thereafter PW1 lodged report before police station. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

15. PW.5/B.Maraiah deposed that, he know LW5. In the year 2016 police conducted scene of offence panchanama near the fish pond of PW1 at

Kanchanapally village with regard to the sale of the fish belonging to PW1 to A1 6 Judgment in C.C. No. 606 of 2016 and A2 and drawn rough sketch for the same. Himself and LW5 endorsed their signatures on the same. Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P4 is the rough sketch.

16. PW.6/B.Daniel Kumar deposed that, Previously he worked as SI of police at

Nalgonda Rural from 30.10.2015 to 09.10.2016. On 15.04.2016 at about 1500 hours he received a complaint from Pw1 basing on which he registered a case in

Cr.No.71/2016 for the offence punishable U/Sec.420, 506 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P5 is FIR and took up investigation. During the Course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of Pw.1 and PW2 at police station. On the same day he visited the Scene of offence situated outskirts of Kanchanapally village and then he conducted Scene of offence panchanama in presence of LW5 and PW4 and drawn rough sketch. Later he examined the statement of PW3 and PW4 at the scene. Later on he collected the land documents pertaining to PW1. On 11.05.2016 he Served 41-A (1) Cr.P.C notices to the accused no.1. On 12.05.2016 he Served 41-A (3) Cr.P.C notices to the accused no.1. After completion of entire investigation he have filed the charge sheet.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCES:-

17. For bringing home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution is to prove the following essential ingredients for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC:-

1.Thevictimhasbeeninducedbytheaccused either fraudulently or dishonestly.

7 Judgment in C.C. No. 606 of 2016

2.By reason of such inducement or deception the victim has done or omitted to do anything which the victim would not do or omit to do if the victim was not deceived or induced by the accused.

18. The Hon'ble Apex court of India in its expression

Mohd.Ibrahim Vs State of Bihar reported in (2009) 6 supreme

470 held that the following ingredients are essential for the offence of cheating:-

1. Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission;

2.Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and

3.Such act or omission causing or it likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, rep utation or property.

19. It is the version of Pw1 that A1 purchased fish weighing about 3758 kgs from the fish pond of Pw1 and A2 received the fish from pw1 on behalf of A1 and loaded the said fish on his bolero vehicle.

Further A1 paid Rs 25,000/- by transferring the amount in the sons account of Pw1. A1 was due for an amount of Rs 2,18,000/- and failed to repay the said amount to pw1.

20. To prove the same, pw1 got marked Exb P2 which is an agree- ment dated 12-05-2016.

21. As per the said agreement, A1 is due for an amount of Rs 8 Judgment in C.C. No. 606 of 2016 1,10,000/-, whereas he had made payment of Rs 50,000/- on 12-05- 2016, and A1 agreed to pay Rs 60,000/- by 12-07-2016.

22. Pw2, who is the son of pw1 reiterated the entire contents of Pw1 in toto.

23. Further, they also got examined pw3 and 4, who supported the version of Pw1 by stating that A2 came to the fish pond of Pw1 and loaded the fish on his bolero vehicle.

24. In his cross examination, Pw3 stated that A1 did not receive fish from Pw1.

25. Pw5, who is one of the panch witness for he scene of offence panchnama just acted as mediator tot he scene of offence and his ev- idence is found no way helpful to connect the accused to this case.

26. Pw6, who is an investigating officer in this case, deposed his version in the lines of charge sheet. Other than that nothing material could be elicited from his cross examination against the accused.

27. In order to establish an offence under section 420 IPC, there must be an intention on the part of the accused to decieve Pw1by causing loss to Pw1.

28. Here admittedly, A1 reported to have made part payments out of the amount due from Pw1, which denotes that there is no guilty in- tention existing on the part of the Accused to decieve Pw1.

9 Judgment in C.C. No. 606 of 2016

29. If such is the case, when the only contention of Pw1 is that he did not receive the entire amount from A1 and A1 kept dodging the matter on one pretext or the other for repayment, it appears to be a dispute of civil nature and no criminal liablity can be attached to it, as there is no element of cheating reflecting on the acts of accused.

30. Pw1 ought to have sought for the relief of recovery of amount under civil litigation and this court feels that this case is not an ap- propriate platform for recovery of amount by Pw1.

31.Since there is no guilty intention attributed on the acts of accused, the offence under section 420 appears to be not attracted against the accused as the case is relating to dispute of civil nature and this court is not an appropriate forum to enable to Pw1 to pro- vide the relief of civil nature.

32. Further, none of the prosecution witness except for Pw1 and stated that A1 threatened Pw1 with dire consequences.

33. Hence the offence under section 506 IPC does not appear to be attracted against the accused.

34. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish the offence under section 420 and 506 IPC against the accused no.1 and 2 beyond rea- sonable doubt.

10 Judgment in C.C. No. 606 of 2016

35.In the result, the accused no. 1 is found not guilty for the of- fences punishable under sec – 420, 506 IPC and he is acquitted un- der sec – 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused person if any shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over. The unmarked case property if any shall hereby stand destroyed after the lapse of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW.1 : K. Madan Reddy NONE

PW.2 : K. Vinay Reddy

PW.3 : M. Israil

PW.4 : G. Krishnaiah

PW.5 : B. Maraiah

PW.6 : B. Daniel Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P.1- is Report. NONE

Ex.P.2- is Agreement, dated: 12.05.2016.

11 Judgment in C.C. No. 606 of 2016

Ex.P.3- is Signatures of PW.5 on Scene of offfence panchanama.

Ex.P.4- is Signatures of PW.5 on Rough Sketch.

Ex.P.5- is FIR.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda

-1- Judgment in C.C. No. 1391 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT) AT NALGONDA

PRESENT: MS. K. SOUNDARYA

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT NALGONDA

(Dated this the 20th day of April, 2026)

C.C. No. 1391 of 2024

BETWEEN:

The State rep. by Station House Officer, Thipparthy. …Prosecution

AND

Vankadaru Hemanth Kumar, S/o. Madhusudhan Rao, Age: 34 Years, Occ: Private employee, R/o. H. No. 14-19-1, Marispeta, Thenali, Guntur of Andhra Pradesh State. …Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri A. Narendar Rao, learned counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a case filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thipparthy in

Crime No. 179 of 2024 for the offences U/Secs. 106(1) of BNS.

The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.10.2024 at 08.30 hours, the complainant Sri. Kotha Venkateshwarlu S/o Lingaiah came to police station and lodged a Telugu written complaint in which he stated that, his parents are staying at Mallepalliyarigudem village by farming their two -2- Judgment in C.C. No. 1391 of 2024 acres of agricultural land. On 13.10.2024 at 19.06 hours, his father Kotha

Lingaiah S/o Peddaiah was crossing the road by walk on SH-02, at

Mallepallivarigudem village, meanwhile the accused drove his car bearing

No TS-07-HW-7874 towards Nalgonda from Miryalaguda side in rash and negligent manner and dashed to his father. As a result, his father received severe injuries over his head, right leg and hands. His villager

Brahmadevara Santhosh has witnessed the accident and informed to other his relatives and immediately shifted him to Govt. Hospital at Nalgonda for necessary treatment. At 20.28 hours, his father died while undergoing treatment, on knowing that, the complainant visited to Govt. Hospital mortuary and found his father died with severe injuries. Hence, he requested take legal action as per law.

3.Upon receiving the report, LW-12 of PS Nalgonda Rural has registered a case in Cr. No. 179/2024 for the offences under Sec. 106(1) of

BNS and took up the investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, LW-12 has examined and recorded the statement of complainant as LW-1 incorporated in CD Part-II at Police Station. Immediately, visited the scene of offence, which was located on the state highway-02 at Mallepallivarigudem of thipparthy mandal. Which is distance about 5 KMs western side from Thipparthy PS, observed the scene minutely, drafted CDF in the presence of two mediators

LWs-8 & 9, Then, the LW-12 along with the same mediators visited the mortuary of Govt. Hqrs Hospital Nalgonda, whereas dead body of deceased -3- Judgment in C.C. No. 1391 of 2024 kotha Lingiah was preserved, Examined and recorded the statements of witnesses LWs-2 to in detailed in part-Il case diary, observed the dead body minutely, held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of same mediators and subjected the body to the medical officer for PME.

Accordingly, LW-11/Dr. Abdul Rehaman Omer Siddiqui, Assistant Professor,

Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Nalgonda has conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased. After PME, dead body was handed over to the LW-1 for last funerals. Then, visited to

Mallepallivarigudem village and examined and recorded the statement of eye witness as LW-7 in detailed in part-II case diary. Then, served a notice

U/s 35 (3) BNSS to the accused with instructions to appear before me for further investigation.

5.Cognizance for the offence punishable U/S. 106(1) of BNS was taken against the sole accused and summons were issued to him. Upon receiving the summons, the accused made his appearance and copies were furnished on to the accused as per Sec. 230 B.N.S.S.

6.The accused was examined U/S. 274 B.N.S.S with reference to the allegations leveled against him for the offence U/S. 106(1) of BNS and substance of accusation was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to

PW.3 and got marked Ex. P.1 to P.4. The evidence of LW.4, LW.5 and

LW10 to 12 were closed by this Court as prosecution failed to examine -4- Judgment in C.C. No. 1391 of 2024 them, inspite of giving ample opportunities. Upon closure of prosecution evidence accused is not examined U/sec., 351 B.N.S.S examination as there is no incriminating material available from the evidences of prosecution.

Accused reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence has been closed.

8.Heard the arguments of both the learned counsels and framed the following point for determination.

POINT:

“Whether the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 106(1) of

BNS or not?

9.Upon perusing the evidences of prosecution, it is evident that PW.1 to PW.3 are turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and they have compromised the matter with the accused. In order to attract the offence U/S. 106(1) of BNS the prosecution must establish that accused had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident of the deceased. Further the act of the accused shall not amount to culpable homicide. But in the current case on hand PW.1 who is the

Complainant and elder son of deceased/Lingaiah and PW2 who is the another son of the deceased/Lingaiah and PW.3 who is the daughter of the deceased/Lingaiah deposed that deceased Lingaiah died in an accident and they do not know as to how accident occurred and they never lodged any report and they are turned hostile. Even though the Learned APP conducted lengthy cross examination nothing could be elicited in favour of -5- Judgment in C.C. No. 1391 of 2024 prosecution. From the evidences of PW.1 to PW.3 there is no piece of evidence available against the accused which is establishing his guilt. The prosecution witness had not testified that he had seen this accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident of deceased/Lingaiah on 13.10.2024. Hence the presence of accused at scene of offence is not established.

10.In view of the aforestated discussion this Court is inclined to hold that the hostility of material witness and non examination of material

Circumstantial witness and panch for scene of offence IO, Doctors, MVI is hampering the case of prosecution and is forcing this Court to record acquittal for the accused for the offence U/S. 106(1) of BNS.

RESULT:

11.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 106(1) of BNS and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 278(1) of B.N.S.S. Bail bonds of accused if any shall stands canceled after the appeal time is over. After due verification the unmarked case property is returned to its original owner.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda -6- Judgment in C.C. No. 1391 of 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW.1 : K. Venkateshwarlu NONE

PW.2 : K. Shankar

PW.3 : K. Lingamma

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P.1- is signature of PW.1 NONE

Ex.P.2- is 180 BNSS Statement of PW.1

Ex.P.3- is 180 BNSS Statement of PW.2

Ex.P.4- is 180 BNSS Statement of PW.3

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:NIL:

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda