CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS:: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: Smt. J. Sowkhya, VIII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad.
Tuesday, the 24thday of March, 2026.
CC.NI.No. 482 OF 2023
(STC NI.No.6904/2022)
Between:
Yerra Suresh, S/o.Y.Anjaiah, Age:42 years, Occ:Business, R/o.NIR, Golden Enclave, Metro Pillar No.404, VIP Hills, Road No.11, Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad.
...Complainant
And
R.Sreepal Reddy, S/o.R.Madhava Reddy, Age;35 years, Occ:Business, R/o.4-27, Ratnavaram, Nadigudem Mandal, Nalgonda District.
...Accused
Section of Law : 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the court : In the result, the accused is foundguilty for an offence U/Sec.200 of 138 of NI Act.
Accordingly, accused is convicted for the said offence under Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C.
1 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
This case came before me for final hearing in presence of N.Bojjaiah Counsel for Complainant and M/s. Vankina Allu and Associatescounsel for accused, hearing upon their arguments, and having stood over for determination till this day, the court delivered the following :-
JUDGMENT
1.The complainant filed complaint Under Section 200 Cr.P.C against accused alleging, that he committed an offence punishable
Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Brief contents of the complaint are: That the complainant and the accused are well acquainted with each other. Due to such acquaintance the accused approached the complainant and requested him for a hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to his business and personal requirements. The complainant gave an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused and after the accused had also executed a Promissory note dt.06-02-2020 and promised to repay the said amount within short period. Thereafter due to Lockdown and pandemic the complainant did not insist the accused though he is facing difficulties. The accused started dragged the matter on one pretext or other. On several requests and demands made by the complainant the accuse had issued a cheque bearing No.002778 dt.13-07-2022 drawn on Telangana state Cooperative Apex Bank
Ltd., Kukatpally Branch, Hyderabad in favour of the complainant. As per the instructions of the accused the complainant presented the said cheque in his banker i.e., ICICI Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch,
Hyderabad on 13-07-2022 but the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” vide cheque return memo 2 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
dt.14-07-2022 and the same informed to the accused. Thereafter the complainant got issued a Legal notice dt.01-08-2022 to the accused through RPAD calling upon the accused to repay the said dishonoured cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice was sent to the accused. The registered post was returned unserved to the complainant on 18-08- 2022 with an endorsement “Addressee Left without instructions”.
The accused did not repay the said cheque amount nor given any reply to the said notice.
3.The complainant filed this complaint before this Court and it was numbered as STC NI 6904 2022. The case was converted to C.C and it was numbered CC.NI.No.482/2023 in accordance with the practice guidelines of the Honourable High Court of Telangana vide circularno.11/2021 vide ROC.No.1608/SO/2020 dated 21.06.2021.
4.The case copies were furnished to accused. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for which he denied the allegations mentioned in the complaint and pleaded not guilty, for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.
5. The complainant in order to establish his case has got himself examined as PW1. Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked on behalf of the complainant.
6. After closure of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing in the complainant witnesses, 3 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
accused denied the same and reported evidence. Mr. Bapu Chandra
Sekhar Reddy is examined as DW1 on behalf of Accused.
7.The learned counsel for complainant and the learned counsel
for the accused submitted their oral arguments.
8.The counsel for complainant by way of oral arguments reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint as arguments on behalf of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has clearly established that the accused and the complainant are well acquainted and that the accused approached the complainant seeking financial assistance. It is further submitted that the complainant advanced a total hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused on different occasions and in acknowledgment of the said liability, the accused executed a promissory note and subsequently issued the cheque in question towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt.It is submitted that the issuance of cheque and the signature of the accused on the cheque are not disputed. Once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v.
Mohan, wherein it is held that the presumption under Section 139 includes the existence of legally enforceable debt. It is further submitted that the presumption under Section 139 is a mandatory presumption and the burden lies on the accused to rebut the same by adducing cogent evidence. Mere denial or suggestions in cross- examination are not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. In 4 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
this regard, he relied on Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, wherein it is held that the presumption can be rebutted only by credible evidence and not by mere explanation. It is further submitted that the admission of PW-1 that he filled the date and amount in the cheque does not invalidate the cheque. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar has clearly held that even a blank signed cheque voluntarily given by the drawer attracts presumption under Section 139 and filling up of contents by the holder does not invalidate the instrument.It is submitted that the defence taken by the accused that the cheque was issued as a “security cheque” is not legally sustainable. Even if a cheque is issued as security, once a legally enforceable debt exists on the date of presentation, dishonour of such cheque attracts Section 138 of the Act. In this regard, he relied on Sripati Singh v. State of
Jharkhand, wherein it is held that security cheque also falls within the purview of Section 138 if liability exists.It is submitted that the evidence of DW-1 does not help the accused in any manner, as he has clearly admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the transaction between the complainant and the accused and his evidence is purely hearsay in nature. Therefore, the same cannot be relied upon to rebut the statutory presumption. It is submitted that the complainant has complied with all the mandatory requirements under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumption. Hence, the accused is liable to be convicted and punished in accordance with law.
9. Per contra the counsel for accused by way of written arguments submitted that the complainant failed to prove his case. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the entire case of the 5 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
complainant is based on a fabricated story of a cash loan of
Rs.10,00,000/- without any supporting documentary evidence and that the cheque in question was not issued towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt but was obtained during the course of employment as a security instrument. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa v.
Mudibasappa, wherein it was held that the presumption under
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable and the accused can establish a probable defence even through cross- examination of the complainant. It is further contended that the true relationship between the complainant and accused was that of employer and employee and not that of lender and borrower and therefore the alleged loan transaction does not arise. The learned counsel further argued that there is absolutely no proof of the alleged cash loan as the complainant has failed to produce any bank statement, withdrawal proof, receipt, independent witness or any account entry to substantiate the alleged advancement of
Rs.10,00,000/-. It is contended that no prudent person would advance such a huge amount in cash without any documentary evidence and such absence of financial proof itself is sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. It is also contended that there are material contradictions in the case of the complainant with regard to the date of transaction as PW-1 in his cross-examination stated that the transaction took place in 2018 whereas in the complaint and chief-examination it is stated to be in 2019. It is further argued that the promissory note relied upon by the complainant is not legally proved as no attesting witnesses were examined and no independent evidence was adduced to prove its execution and that mere marking of document does not amount to proof. The learned 6 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
counsel for the accused further contended that PW-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he himself filled the date and amount columns in the cheque and this clearly supports the defence that the cheque was issued as a blank signed security cheque. It is argued that once such admission is made, the burden shifts back on the complainant to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt independently. It is further contended that there is unexplained delay and silence for nearly 2½ years between the alleged loan transaction and issuance of cheque which is inconsistent with normal human conduct and creates serious doubt about the genuineness of the transaction. It is also argued that the statutory notice was not properly served and therefore mandatory compliance under Section 138(b) of the Act is not satisfied. It is further submitted that as the complainant failed to prove his case and as the accused rebutted the presumption under section 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, as such the accused entitled to be acquitted. Accused relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in Basalingappa Vs Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 and Judgment of
Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vardhineedi Sri
Ramanjaneyoulu vs Yeeda Sasibhushan and Another (2025 SCC
OnLine AP 1801).
10.Having been heard both the sides and upon considering contentions of both sides and material on record, the following points fell for determination:
11. Points for determination:
i)Whether the mandatory requirements prescribed for an offence to be constituted Under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 are being satisfied in the present case?
7 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
ii)If so, whether the accused could rebut the presumption
Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
(iii)To what order?
12. POINT (i):
For an offence to be constituted Under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the section itself mandates certain conditions to be complied with, which if not satisfied, the offence under this section would not be constituted.
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, reads as
here under:
Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account: Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to
honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to
be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:
8 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
(a)the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months (now three months as per circular of RBI videcircularRBI/2011-12/251DBODAMLBC
No.47/14.01.001/2011-2012 dated 04.11.2011, with effect from 01.04.2012) from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier:
(b)the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid: and
(c)the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
13. In the present case the complainant presented Ex.P1 cheque bearing No. 002778 dt.13-07-2022 for an amount of Rs.10,00,000 which was dishonored and the same was evident from Ex.P2 cheque return memo dt.14-07-2022, Ex.P3 office copy of legal notice dt.01-08-2022, Ex.P4 postal receipts dt.10-08-2022, Ex.P5
Returned Postal Cover with endorsement “Addressee Left without 9 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
instructions” dt.16-08-2022, Ex.P6 Original Promissory Note dt.06- 02-2020. It is evident from Ex.P3 i.e., office copy of legal notice dt.01-08-2022 sent by complainant to accused that the complainant sent statutory demand notice to accused. Therefore, sub section (a) and Sub Section (b) of proviso to Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 are satisfied in this case.
14. Hence it is held that all the mandatory requirements under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are being satisfied in the present case. Hence Point No.(i) is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant
15. POINT (ii):
Once the point No.(i) is answered in favour of the complainant herein i.e., all the mandatory requirements prescribed Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are being satisfied, presumption
Under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, raises in favour of the complainant. Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 reads as hereunder:
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is as
follows: Presumption in favour of holder:
It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
16. Hence in this case as all the mandatory requirements Under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are held to be satisfied, 10 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
now a presumption under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is raised in favour of the complainant i.e., there existed legally enforceable debt or liability to be payable by the accused herein to the complainant herein and that the subject cheque pertaining to this case was issued by the accused to the complainant herein in discharge in part or in full of the said debt or liability. Now the burden is on the accused herein to rebut the presumption Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. To rebut the presumption
Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the present case the accused relied only upon cross examination of PW1 .
17. The complainant as PW1 has filed chief evidence affidavit on his behalf in lieu of chief examination and got marked Exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 on his behalf. The complainant as PW1 during his chief examination by way of affidavit reiterated the facts as mentioned in the complaint as evidence on his behalf as such the same are not reproduced to avoid repetition.
18. During cross examination PW1 in his cross examination deposed that presently he is doing Real Estate business by purchased the lands and selling them for profits. PW1 deposed that he acts as mediator between the parties. From the year 2019 onwards as on date he acted as mediator approximately for four to five transactions. He is an Income Tax Assessee but he has not filed his Income Tax Returns before this court. He was doing Real Estate
Business since past five to six years. Around the year 2017 he had a food business in the food court at Madhapur and accused worked as employee in his business as such he was acquainted with the accused. He does not remember what was the salary of the accused 11 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
at that time. He adds that his partners used to take care of those things. There are no partnership deeds in respect of his food business with his partners. He gave an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused on three different occasions by way of cash but he does not remember the dates on which he gave the above-mentioned amount to the accused. The above-mentioned transactions happened in the year 2018 but he does not remember the months.
There is no documentary evidence so does there are no eye witness to the transactions as mentioned above. He himself mentioned date and amount in the date column and amount column in Ex.P1 cheque. He agreed that the dates on which he gave money to the accused not mentioned in the complaint, his evidence affidavit and also Legal notice. Accused himself wrote the dates in Ex.P6. PW.1 is denied to a suggestion that he ahs never lent any money to the accused more particularly an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on three different occasions. PW.1 further denied to a suggestion that he misused the cheque and promissory note of the accused that he obtained from the accused while himself worked as employee in his food business. PW.1 further denied to a suggestion that there existed no legally enforceable debt or liability to be discharged by the accused in his favour. PW.1 further denied to a suggestion that since this case was based on a false story as such he cannot said the dates on which he lent money to the accused. Pw.1 further denied to a suggestion that since this case was based on a false story as such the dates of the cheque, Promissory note and the alleged dates on which that he lent money to the accused as deposed by him were not matching.
12 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
19. Bapu Chandra Shekar Reddy examined as DW.1 and he deposed that the accused worked in his shop for nine years. The accused is not involved in any transactions. Complainant has filed a false case against the accused. In the year 2019 the accused worked in a hotel in Mine space there he issued a cheque for security purpose. During cross examination PW1 in his cross examination deposed that he did not received summons from the court to depose in this case. DW.1 admitted that he came to the court to give evidence as accused requested him to give evidence.
He does not have personal knowledge about the facts of the complaint and he does not have personal knowledge about the transaction between accused and the complainant. Accused informed him that accused has issued cheque for security. DW.1 admitted that he does not exactly said the particulars of the accused working period under him. DW.1 denied to a suggestion that accused never worked in a hotel in Mind space and he has deposed false. DW.1 admitted that complainant has no relation with the hotel in mind space. Dw.1 denied to a suggestion that he deposed false in his chief examination.
20.During the cross examination of Pw.1 accused had taken the contention that complainant had no financial capacity to lend such a huge amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and not filed any Income Tax returns . It is settled law that once presumption under Section 139 operates, the complainant is not required to independently prove financial capacity unless the accused brings cogent and convincing evidence to disprove the same. Except making suggestions in cross- examination, the accused has not produced any material to show that the complainant was incapable of lending the amount. The law 13 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri
Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 clearly mandates that once the signature on the cheque is admitted, the presumption of debt becomes operative, and the accused must discharge the burden. On the contrary, once the signature on Ex.P1 admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act which includes a presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt.Hence the contention of the accused cannot be accepted.
21.During the cross examination of Pw.1 accused had taken the contention that the cheque was issued as a security during the course of employment. However, the accused has not produced any material to substantiate the alleged employer–employee relationship or the plea of security cheque. Mere suggestion in cross-examination without supporting evidence cannot be accepted as proof. In this regard the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar
Exports v. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513 has held that bare denial is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
22 .During the cross examination of Pw.1 accused had taken the contention that PW-1 stated that he filled the date and amount columns on Ex P1 .
However the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh vs
Mukesh Kumar AIR 2019 SC 2446 held that ‘‘ 37. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the
Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces 14 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.
38. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque.
The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.
39. It is not the case of the respondent-accused that he either signed the cheque or parted with it under any threat or coercion.Nor is it the case of the respondent accused that the unfilled signed cheque had been stolen. The existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payee of a cheque and its drawer, would not disentitle the payee to the benefit of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion. The second .question is also answered in the negative.
40. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
15 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
41. The fact that the appellant-complainant might have been an
Income Tax practitioner conversant with knowledge of law does not make any difference to the law relating to the dishonour of a cheque. The fact that the loan may not have been advanced by a cheque or demand draft or a receipt might not have been obtained would make no difference. In this context, it would, perhaps, not be out of context to note that the fact that the respondent-accused should have given or signed blank cheque to the appellant- complainant, as claimed by the respondent-accused, shows that initially there was mutual trust and faith between them.’’
Hence the contention of the accused cannot be accepted.
23. In this case accused contended that the promissory note is not proved and that there is delay between alleged transaction and issuance of cheque is also not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. The accused has not produced any evidence to show that there is no liability. Further, DW-1 admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the transaction. Thus, the accused has failed to establish a probable defence so as to rebut the statutory presumption. On the other hand, the complainant has proved the issuance of cheque, its dishonour and compliance of statutory requirements under Section 138 of the Act. In view of the above discussion, the judgments relied upon by the complainant, particularly Rangappa v. Mohan and Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, are applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, this Court holds that the complainant has successfully proved the case and the accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumption. Complainant through his oral and documentary evidence has proved the existence of legally enforceable debt for which cheque Ex.P1 was 16 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
issued. Therefore, this point is answered, in favour of complainant and against accused.
Point (iii):
24. In view of the findings to point No.s (i) and (ii), this point is answered as here under:
In the result, accused is found guilty for an offence U/Sec.200 of 138 of NI Act. Accordingly, accused is convicted for the said offence under Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C.
( Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on 24 th day of
March, 2026.)
VIII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
HYDERABAD.
25. Quantum of Sentence:
The accused has been questioned on the quantum of sentence upon which the accused pleaded mercy as he is the sole bread winner and having old age parents , prayed to take lenient view.
Heard the accused with regard to quantum of sentence.
After taking into consideration all the circumstances and nature of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the said circumstances are not mitigating in nature. This is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of probation of offenders Act and also not case to take lenient view. Accordingly, the accused is hereby convicted for the 17 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881. Accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of Six Months and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 12,01,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh One Thousand only) under
Section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Out of the said fine amount, a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under
Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C., and the balance of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees
One Thousand only) shall be credited to the State. In default of payment of the fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the accused during trial shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Accused is informed about the right of filing appeal against the judgment within the limitation period of law. A free copy of Judgment shall be given to the accused as per Sec.363 of Cr.P.C
R/w.Rule 73 of Criminal Rules of Practice free of cost.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on 24 th day of
March, 2026.)
VIII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
For Prosecution
PW-1 – Mr.Yerra Suresh.
For Defence 18 to 19
CC.NI.No.482/2023
Dt:24-03-2026
DW-1- Mr.Bapu Chandra Shekar Reddy
Exhibits Marked for Prosecution
1. Ex.P1: is the cheque bearing No.002778 dt.13-07-2022 for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
2. Ex.P2: is the cheque return memo dt. 14-07-2022.
3. Ex.P3: is the office copy of Legal notice dt.01-08-2022.
4. Ex.P4: is the Postal receipt dt. 10-08-2022
5. Ex.P5: is the Returned Postal Cover with endorsement “Addressee
Left without instructions dt.16-08-2022.
6. Ex.P6: is the Original Promissory Note dt.06-02-2020.
Exhibits Marked for Defence:
- NIL-
VIII JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
HYDERABAD
19 to 19