1
APGU020011672025
Calendar and Judgment In
Calendar Case No: 669/2018
ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR
1.::17.08.2018 Date of Offence
2.::24.09.2018. Date of Report/Complaint
3.Date of Apprehension::----
4.Date of Release::----
5.Commencement of trial::11.03.2019.
6.Date of Closure of trial::27.02.2026.
7.Date of Judgment::16.04.2026
8.Name of the Complainant::Shaik Musheer, S/o Babu, Muslim, aged about 42 years, Business, R/o Door No.54-6- 1692, Main Road Shop Employees Colony, Guntur-1.
9.Name of the Accused::Pavuluri Hari Narayana, S/o Venkata Siva Narayana, aged about 48 years, Chowdary, House No.2-53, Kavuru Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District.
10.Section of Law::Under Section 138 of NI Act.
11.Plea of Accused::Pleaded Not guilty.
2
12.Finding of the court::Found guilty.
13. SENTENCE: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C and Accordingly, accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months (Six months) and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. In default of payment of compensation, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months. Accused did not undergo any detention. It is informed to the convict that he has right to prefer appeal against this Judgment before the
Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Guntur. Further, the accused
also informed about the availability of free legal aid services to prefer an appeal. The office is directed to serve the copy of Judgment to the accused, forthwith.
14. Explanation for Delay: Originally, this case was taken on file and numbered as CC.No.669/2018 on the file of VI Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur. Later this case was transferred to this court on 26.7.2025 as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Guntur vide in Dis.No.3146, dt.17.5.2025. On 14.2.2019, the accused was Examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. Trial commenced in this case on 11.3.2019 and complainant side evidence closed on 31.10.2025 by examining P.W.1 and by marking Exs.P1 to P6 and posted for Section 313 Cr.P.C Examination. On 4.11.2025, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and posted the matter for defence evidence and on 27.2.2026, defence evidence closed by examining D.W.1 and by marking Exs.D1 to D3 and posted for arguments and on 6.4.2026 heard arguments and posted for Judgment and on 16.4.2026 Judgment pronounced. Hence, there is no unavailable delay.
Sd/- V. Deepthi,
PRL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM
- PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),
GUNTUR. Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Note: The Execution of Sentence is suspended till 16.5.2026, as per the orders in Crl.MP No.309/2026, dt.16.4.2026 3
IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-
CUM-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT (JUNIOR DIVISION): GUNTUR
Present: Smt V. Deepthi,
Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-
Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur
Thursday, the 16th day of APRIL, 2026
C.C.No.669/2018
Between: Shaik Musheer, S/o Babu, Muslim, aged about 42 years, Business, R/o Door No.54-6-1692, Main Road Shop Employees Colony, Guntur-1. … Complainant
And
Pavuluri Hari Narayana, S/o Venkata Siva Narayana, aged about 48 years, House No.2-53, Kavuru Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District.
... Accused
This case has coming before me on 6.4.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for complainant and of Sri M. Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Accused and upon perusing the material on record, hearing on both sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following Judgment.
JUDGMENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 (for brevity NI Act).
4
The main case of the complainant in brief is that:
2.The brief case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant on 6.7.2017 at Guntur for his family expenses and executed a promissory note on the even date in his favour by agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a.
either to the complainant or his order thereto and on repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.824811 dt.14.8.2018 drawn on State Bank of India, Agricultural college, Bapatla, for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards part payment of the debt amount due to the complainant and on believing the accused, the complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker i.e., State
Bank of India, Nehru Nagar Branch, Guntur on 14.8.2018 and the same was dishonored for the reason “Funds Insufficient” and the same was intimated to the complainant by his banker on 17.8.2018 and thereupon, the complainant got issued a regd. Statutory notice dt.21.8.2018 to the accused demanding him to repay the above cheque amount within 15 days and the accused got it returned with postal endorsement that “addressee not in village” dt.29.8.2018 and therefore, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint. Hence the complaint.
3.This case was transferred to this Court from VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Prl. District
Judge, Guntur vide in Dis.No.3146, dt.17.5.2025.
4.After perusing the sworn affidavit of complainant and on considering the material on record, this case was taken on file for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and issued summons against the accused.
5.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5
6.The accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of complaint, for which, he denied, the accusation under Section 138 of N.I Act has been made and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.During the course of trial, the complainant himself got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 on behalf of complainant and Ex.D1 marked through P.W.1.
8.After closure of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of complainant witnesses, for which he stated that entire incriminating evidence appearing against him is false and reported that he has defence evidence on his behalf.
9.During the defence evidence, the accused got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 and the complainant got marked
Ex.P7 through D.W.1.
10.Heard both sides. Perused the material placed before this court.
11.Now the point for determination is that:
Whether the complainant has proved his case beyond all
reasonable doubt against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of NI Act ?
POINT:
12.In the present case, the complainant himself got examined as
P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. Ex.P1 is the original promissory note dt.6.7.2017 for Rs.2,50,000/- executed in favour of complainant, Ex.P2 is the cheque bearing No.824811, dt.14.8.2018 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on State 6
Bank of India, Agricultural college, Bapatla. Ex.P3 is the cheque return memo dt.17.8.2018. Ex.P4 is the office copy of legal notice dt.21.8.2018 along with postal receipt. Ex.P5 is the Postal Receipt dt.21.08.2018 issued by the accused. Ex.P6 is the Returned Legal notice dt.29.8.2018 issued by the accused.
13.In order to establish the guilt against accused for the offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the following ingredients to be established.
i. The cheque must have been drawn for discharge of existing debt or liability. ii. Cheque must be presented within 6 months or within validity period, whichever is earlier. iii. Cheque must be returned unpaid due to insufficient funds or it exceeds the amount arranged. iv. Fact of dishonor be informed to the drawer by notice within 30 days. v. Drawer of cheque must fail to make payment within 15 days of receipt of the notice.
Ingredient No.1:
14.The first ingredient to establish the guilt against accused for the offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is that the cheque must be drawn for discharge of existing debt or liability.
Execution of Cheque:
15.The brief contention of the complainant is that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant on 6.7.2017 at
Guntur for his family expenses and executed a promissory note on the even date in his favour and on repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.824811 dt.14.8.2018 drawn on State 7
Bank of India, Agricultural college, Bapatla , Guntur for an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- towards part payment of the above said debt.
16.In order to prove the first ingredient, the complainant himself got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. P.W.1 deposed in his chief examination on par with the lines of contents of his complaint.
17.In the cross-examination, P.W.1 consistently deposed that the accused borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from him for his family expenses and the accused brought the filled cheque and put his signature on the same at his house and he do not know where the accused has filled the cheque and he do not know who scribed Ex.P2 i.e., cheque and the accused put his signature in Ex.P2 in his presence and the accused came to his house and gave Ex.P2 to him.
18.Here, P.W.1 deposed consistently both in his chief and cross- examinations and his evidence is corroborated by Exs.P1 and P2.
19.Pertaining to this aspect, D.W.1 admitted during his cross- examination that the signatures present in Exs.P1 and P2 belongs to him.
From this, the defendant clearly admitted the execution of Exs.P1 and P2 .
20.The only contention of accused is that he executed an empty signed promissory note and cheque in favour of one Advocate by name B.
Ashok Kumar towards security for the amount borrowed by him from the said
Advocate and he never executed any promissory note and cheque in favour of this complainant.
21.Pertaining to this aspect, when we go through Section 20 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it clearly says that when one person signs and delivers a stamped negotiable instrument to another person, either wholly blank or having written an incomplete negotiable installment and he thereby gives prima-facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete 8 it, then the person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument to any holder in due course for such amount.
22.Section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act clearly says that the person who signs in an inchoate stamped negotiable instruments shall be liable upon such instrument.
23.Here the accused clearly admitting his signatures present in
Exs.P1 and P2 and so, there is no dispute that Exs.P1 and P2 were executed by the accused herein. Once he signed in an empty signed promissory note and cheque, he shall be liable for such negotiable instruments and so, the complainant succeeded in proving the execution of
Exs.P1 and P2 by the accused.
Presumption:
24.As a complainant succeeded in proving the execution of Exs.P1 and P2, we must move to the concept of presumption.
25.For this, when we go through Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881, it says as follows:
“Section 118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.—
Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:—
(a) of consideration:- that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration”.
26.Further, this Court intends to rely upon the decision of Hon’ble
Apex Court in Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Vs. Amin
Chand Pyarelal, AIR 1999 Supreme court 1008 wherein, their lordship held that:- 9 “ Once the Execution of the promissory note is
admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would
arise that it is supported by consideration. Such a
presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the
non Existence of consideration by raising a probable
defence. In case of discharge of the initial burden, the
onus would shift to the defendant .”
27.Further, Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, says as follows:
“Sec.139. 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.”
28.Further, this court intends to rely upon the decision in
R.Rajendran vs. A.J.Yuvaraj Reddy and another, wherein the Hon’ble
High Court held that:- “ Once issuance of cheque and signature thereon
admitted, even though, the blank cheques were issued,
burden lies on the Accused as to why he issued the same .”
29.From all these, this Court can safely tell that if the complainant succeeded in proving the execution of negotiable instrument, whether it may be promissory note or cheque, then the Court shall presume that the party executed them for consideration, irrespective of the fact of inchoate instrument. The court shall also presume that the cheque was issued or executed towards discharge of existing debt or liability.
30.Here, the complainant successfully proved that Exs.P1 and P2 are executed by the accused and so, the Court shall presume that Ex.P1 was supported by consideration and Ex.P2 was issued towards discharge of 10 existing debt and accordingly, the Court presumed the same. Now the complainant discharged his initial burden and now the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the said presumption.
Rebuttal Evidence:
31.To rebut the said presumption, the accused got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D2 and D3. Ex.D2 is statement of
ICICI Bank account of accused, which discloses UPI payment of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- to UPI No.9515134579@ybl. Ex.D3 is statement of Axis
Bank account of accused, which discloses UPI payment of Rs.25,000/- and
Rs.23,000/- to Ashok Kumar.
32.D.W.1 deposed in his chief examination that one Shaik Musheer filed this case against him, without giving any legal notice to him prior to filing of this complaint and he do not know Shaik Musheer i.e., the complainant herein. D.W.1 further deposed that previously he borrowed an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- from one Advocate by name B. Ashok Kumar on 5.5.2016, for which, he obtained empty signed promissory note, empty signed cheque and empty signed Rs.100/- stamp paper and his original registered sale deeds pertaining to Ac.7.42 cents of agricultural land, towards security of said amount and after one year in the month of June, 2017, he repaid the entire debt with an interest of 24% per annum to said advocate and he asked him to return his documents, for which the said Advocate stated that as he paid amount in the court premises and the said documents were present in his house and so he promised to return those documents later and so he kept quiet and thereafter he did not met the said advocate in the year 2018 and 2019 and subsequently due to covid pandemic he did not met the said advocate and in the year 2018, Shaik Musheer filed a cheque bounce case against him by misusing his empty cheque available with B.Ashok Kumar advocate and sent summons through the court and he received summons in 11 the year 2018 through the court and since then, he has been attending the court in CC No.669/2018.
33.D.W.1 further deposed that subsequently, in the year 2022,
Shaik Musheer and B.Ashok Kumar advocate threatened him and obtained a written acknowledgment from him with the contents that he agreed to pay
Rs.16,00,000/- to Shaik Musheer/complainant herein towards settlement in
C.C. No.669/2018 and basing on said written acknowledgment obtained from him, the matter went to National Lokadalath for 2 times, but the same was not settled in the National Lokadalath, as they did not come forward for settlement and thereafter he expressed his inability to pay Rs.16,00,000/- to them and agreed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to B. Ashok
Kumar, for which they both agreed to receive the said amount and to settle the matter and so he paid Rs.2,00,000/- out of Rs.3,00,000/- to Shaik
Musheer on 21.12.2022, on the instructions of B. Ashok Kumar advocate and obtained a stamped receipt from Shaik Musheer and thereafter he sent
Rs.25,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.23,000/- to B. Ashok Kumar advocate on 19.6.2023 through phonepay transaction and he sent remaining
Rs.2,000/- on 7.7.2023 and so he paid the entire agreed amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant and B. Ashok Kumar Advocate.
34.D.W.1 further deposed that after receiving said Rs.3,00,000/-, they again started demanding remaining Rs.13,00,000/- from him and as B.
Ashok Kumar advocate is threatening him that he will be convicted in this case, if he failed to pay remaining Rs.13,00,000/- to them, he again gave registered partition deed of his father-in-law by name Talasila Krishna Murthy to B. Ashok Kumar advocate towards security of said Rs.13,00,000/-.
35.In the cross-examination D.W.1 admitted that there are financial transactions took place between him and said Ashok Kumar and he did not mention the purpose in the phone pay transaction, regarding which he 12 transferred above said Rs.25,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.23,000/- to
D. Ashok Kumar and admitted that he frequently met with the said Ashok
Kumar even in the year 2018-2019 in the Court premises.
36.D.W.1 further deposed in his cross-examination that he paid
Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant under Ex.D1 in view of settlement took place between them and Ex.D1 was written by his counsel.
37.D.W.1 admitted that the letter confronted to him was written by him on 23.8.2023, which was marked as Ex.P7. D.W.1 voluntarily deposed that said Ashok Kumar, Advocate obtained said letter from him by threatening him in the Court canteen, in the presence of Shaik Musheer and another Advocate. D.W.1 further deposed that he did not lodge any report against said B. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, as he threatened him and obtained Ex.P7 forcefully from him.
38.D.W.1 admitted that he did not file original copy of Ex.D1 and he filed photostat copy of Ex.D1 i.e. receipt dt.21.12.2022 for Rs.2,00,000/- given by complainant stating that the accused paid Rs.2,00,000/- to him on 21.12.2022. D.W.1 voluntarily deposed that at first he handed over the original of Ex.D1 to his counsel to file it before the court, but subsequently
Ashok kumar counsel informed him that they will withdraw the case, if he return original copy of Ex.D1 receipt to them and so he took Ex.D1 original copy from his counsel and gave it to Ashok kumar counsel and after receiving the same, they threatened him and got executed Ex.P7 letter. D.W.1 admitted that he did not file any documentary proof to show that the complainant received the cheque amount.
39.D.W.1 further deposed that said B. Ashok kumar counsel stated that if he write the letter as per his instructions and return the original copy of
Ex.D1, then only he will withdraw the case and so on obeying his instructions he wrote Ex.P7 as dictated by him and returned Ex.D1 original copy to him 13 and the said Ashok kumar counsel did not beat him or abuse him and only on his oral instructions he wrote said letter.
40.Here, when we go through the evidence of D.W.1, he deposed that he gave empty signed promissory note, empty signed cheque and empty signed Rs.100/- stamp paper and his original regd. Sale deeds pertaining to
Ac.7-42 cents of agricultural land to Ashok Kumar counsel towards security of Rs.2,00,000/- borrowed by him from said counsel on 5.5.2016 and he repaid entire debt in the year 2017 itself and when he requested said counsel, he stated that he will return said documents later and so, he kept quite and subsequently, he did not met said advocate in the year 2018, 2019 and during Covid pandemic.
41.Pertaining to this aspect, this Court is of the view that as per the version of accused, the accused gave high security for the amount borrowed by him i.e., he gave empty signed documents to Ashok Kumar Advocate, which means he gave ample opportunity to said Ashok Kumar to mislead them and more particularly, he gave those empty signed documents to an advocate and in such circumstances, he must be highly careful and cautious about his liability and about his documents. Law always protects vigilant, but not dormant. As per the version of accused, the said Ashok Kumar, Advocate is very much cautious about his amount and he obtained high security from the accused more than the required. In such circumstances, the accused also must be highly cautious and careful about his documents and liability.
Even if we think otherwise that the counsel said that those documents present at his house and he will return those documents when he go home, the accused might have paid the amount at his house and might have taken his documents immediately or he paid in the Court premises, he would have followed the said counsel to his house on that day or the other day and he should have obtain his documents at the earliest point of time, but he did not do so. Simply he deposed that thereafter, he did not met said Ashok Kumar 14 counsel in the year 2018, 2019 and during Covid Pandemic, which itself shows that he is not vigilant about his documents and liability and the said statement is also highly suspicious.
42.Quite contradictory to his own statement, he again deposed that in the year 2018 itself, Shaik Musheer filed this cheque bounce case against him by misusing empty cheque available with the Ashok Kumar, Advocate and he received summons in the year 2018 itself and since then, he has been attending the Court. He also deposed in his cross-examination that he frequently met with said Ashok Kumar, Advocate even in the year 2018, 2019
in the Court premises.
43.The said evidence of D.W.1 is quite contradictory to his own statement deposed above that he did not met said Ashok Kumar counsel in the year 2018, 2019 and thereafter, due to Covid pandemic. Further, when he is attending Court proceedings in this case since 2018, stating that he did not met said Ashok Kumar, Advocate in the year 2018, 2019 and thereafter is highly suspicious and impracticable, as he is contending that the said Ashok
Kumar, Advocate misused his documents and got filed this case through
P.W.1.
44.Further, D.W.1 himself admitted in his cross-examination that he did not send any legal notice to D. Ashok kumar to return his empty signed promissory note, cheque and empty signed Rs.100/- stamp paper and his original registered sale deed and further admitted that he did not file any report at the police station or did not take any legal action against said Ashok
Kumar for not returning his documents.
45.Pertaining to this aspect, this Court is of the view that when said
Ashok Kumar, Advocate did not return his documents, then what prevented him in sending legal notice to him to return his documents was not explained and what prevented him in taking any legal action against said Ashok Kumar, 15
Advocate was not explained, even though the said Ashok Kumar, Advocate misused his documents and got filed this case through this complainant.
Which itself shows the genuinity in his case.
46.Further, D.W.1 deposed that he executed a written acknowledgment for Rs.16,00,000/- with an undertaking to repay the same to
Shaik Musheer towards settlement in this case.
47.Pertaining to this aspect, this Court is of the view that, as per the contention of D.W.1, he borrowed only Rs.2,00,000/- from Ashok Kumar,
Advocate in the year 2016. Even if we calculate interest @ 24% p.a., it comes around Rs.3,00,000/- by 2022 and so, in total it comes around
Rs.5,00,000/-. Even if we go by Exs.P1 and P2, Ex.P1 also executed for
Rs.2,50,000/- with the date of 6.7.2017 and Ex.P2 was executed for
Rs.3,00,000/-. Even if we consider double the cheque amount, it comes around Rs.6,00,000/-. For these small amounts, he agreed to pay
Rs.16,00,000/- to P.W.1 towards settlement amount is highly suspicious, as his version is that he already discharged entire debt in the year 2017 itself to Ashok Kumar, Advocate. Except his self serving statement, he did not file said written acknowledgment copy before this Court and so, there is no proof in support of his contention and he also failed to explain the circumstances under which he failed to produce said written acknowledgment before this
Court.
48.D.W.1 further deposed that basing on said written acknowledgment obtained from him, the matter went to National Lok Adalat for 2 times, but the same was not settled, as they did not come forward for settlement.
49.Here, he deposed as if he is ready to pay said Rs.16,00,000/- to the complainant, but even then P.W.1 did not come forward to receive said amount, which is also a highly suspicious statement, because when any 16 person is getting such a huge amount for Rs.3,00,000/- cheque, no one will hesitate to receive the same. The said statement itself shows the genuinity in the version of accused.
50.Here, the version of D.W.1 is that said Ashok Kumar, Advocate got filled Ex.P1 for Rs.2,50,000/- and Ex.P2 for Rs.3,00,000/- and got filed this case through PW.1 and subsequently he demanded Rs.16,00,000/- towards settlement of this case. If that is the case, as per the version of
D.W.1, the said Ashok Kumar is in possession of empty signed promissory note and cheque of accused and so, he can fill any amount as per his whims and fancies and at the time of filling of said documents itself he can write said Rs.16,00,000/- and he need not confine them to Rs.2,50,000/- and
Rs.3,00,000/- and so, the said statement of D.W.1 also shows the genuinity in his case.
51.Further D.W.1 deposed that subsequently after returning the matter from National Lok Adalat, he expressed his inability to pay
Rs.16,00,000/- to them and agreed to pay cheque amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to
B. Ashok Kumar and they both agreed to receive the same and so, he paid
Rs.2,00,000/- out of Rs.3,00,000/- to Shaik Musheer i.e., complainant herein on 21.12.2022 and on the instructions of B. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, he obtained a stamp receipt from Shaik Musheer and thereafter he sent
Rs.25,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.23,000/- to B. Ashok Kumar,
Advocate on 19.6.2023 through Phonepay transactions and sent remaining
Rs.2,000/- on 7.7.2023 and so he paid entire agreed amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant and B. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
52.From the said evidence of D.W.1, he himself contradicted his earlier statement that he was ready to settle the matter in the National Lok
Adalat by paying Rs.16,00,000/-, but the complainant and B. Ashok Kumar,
Advocate themselves did not come forward for settlement. When he was 17 ready to pay Rs.16,00,000/- to the complainant for 2 National Lok Adalats, then why he became suddenly incapable to pay Rs.16,00,000/- and why he requested to settle the matter for Rs.3,00,000/- was not explained and that too, there was a huge difference between Rs.16,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- and so, the said version of D.W.1 is not trustworthy.
53.Further, pertaining to Ex.D1 receipt, when we go through the cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.1 clearly admitted that the signature present in the receipt shown to him is belongs to him and Ex.D1 receipt dt.21.12.2022 was marked through P.W.1. P.W.1 voluntarily deposed that on the said date, the accused obtained his signature on said receipt by stating that he is obtaining his signature on the said receipt only for the purpose of adjournment in this case and not more than that and he has to get money from some where else and as a security, he handed over his Registered sale deed dt.2.4.2013 vide Doc. No.1522/2013 and on that day he did not pay any amount to him and he also gave another written signed document to him on 23.8.2023 by stating that he did not pay Rs.2,00,000/- to him under Ex.D1.
54.During the cross-examination of D.W.1, Ex.P7 was marked through D.W.1 by the complainant, which was a letter written by the accused on 23.8.2023.
55.When we go through Ex.D1 receipt, it is seen that it is a photostat copy of receipt executed by complainant stating that on 21.12.2022 the accused herein has paid Rs.2,00,000/- to him towards part payment in this case. Basing on Ex.D1, the accused is deposing that he paid
Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant herein on the instructions of B. Ashok
Kumar, Advocate.
56.Pertaining to this aspect, P.W.1 clearly deposed that on the said date, the accused did not pay any amount to him and he obtained said receipt from him by misleading him and subsequently, the accused 18 acknowledged in Ex.P7 that he did not pay any amount to him on 21.12.2022.
When we go through Ex.P7, it is clearly seen that it is a original copy, in which it is clearly admitted that the accused did not pay Rs.2,00,000/- on 21.12.2022 to P.W.1 and so, the said receipt under Ex.D1 was cancelled and he also admitted that he did not pay any amount to P.W.1 previously. From this, the complainant successfully rebutted the version of D.W.1 pertaining to payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to P.W.1 under Ex.D1 and the accused miserably failed to prove his contention.
57.Even if we think otherwise that the accused paid Rs.2,00,000/- to P.W.1 on 21.12.2022 itself, then what prevented him in getting file the part satisfaction memo by the complainant before this Court on the same day itself and get it recorded before the Court was not explained. If really he wants to pay the said amount to P.W.1 on the said date, he can pay the same before the Court and he can get the same recorded before the Court and even by then, he can be more vigilant about his payments, as the other party is cheating him and threatening him, but he did not do so for the reasons best known to him, which itself shows the geninity in his contention.
58.Pertaining to Ex.P7, D.W.1 deposed that B. Ashok Kumar,
Advocate threatened him and obtained Ex.P7 forcefully from him, which is not at all tenable, as he is not a layman and he also engaged his counsel and his counsel knows all the consequences and his counsel can take legal action against the complainant and B. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, if really they threatened his client and obtained fraudulent documents from him during pendency of this case. But, no such legal action taken either by him or by his counsel, which itself shows the genuinity in his contention.
59.Pertaining to non-filing of original copy of Ex.D1, D.W.1 admitted that he did not file original copy of Ex.D1 and he filed photostat copy of Ex.D1 and voluntarily deposed that at first he handed over the original of Ex.D1 to 19 his counsel to file it before the court, but subsequently Ashok kumar counsel informed him that they will withdraw the case, if he return original copy of
Ex.D1 receipt to them and so he took Ex.D1 original copy from his counsel and gave it to Ashok kumar counsel and after receiving the same, they threatened him and got executed Ex.P7 letter.
60.Pertaining to this aspect, this Court is of the view that Ex.D1 was executed on 21.12.2022 and Ex.P7 was executed on 23.8.2023 and so, there is a gap of 8 months between both of them and in these 8 months, what prevented the accused in filing the said receipt before the Court and get it recorded was not explained and for non-filing of its original copy, he stated a new story. Even if we think otherwise, as per the version of accused, he was cheated many times by the complainant and B. Ashok Kumar, Advocate by 23.8.2023 and even then, he returned his one and only documentary proof to P.W.1, by believing that they will withdraw the case if he handed over his one and only documentary proof to them is highly suspicious and after returning the same, as they threatened him, he executed Ex.P7 in favour of
P.W.1 by mentioning self incriminating statements in it is also highly suspicious, as he engaged his counsel to represent on his behalf and to deal with his case. No ordinary prudent man will execute such a letter covered under Ex.P7 even though the other party threatened him when the case is pending between them. Having known all its consequences, he executed
Ex.P7 in favour of P.W.1. Even if we think otherwise that the other party is threatening him to execute a letter such as Ex.P7, he can bring the same to the notice of this Court and he can also take legal action against them with the aid of his counsel, but he did not do either of the things and so, there is no supporting evidence that the complainant and his counsel threatened him and obtained Ex.P7 from accused and so, the said version is unbelievable.
61.Further, no where in Ex.D1 and Ex.P7, it reflects the name of B.
Ashok Kumar, Advocate. As Ex.D1 and Ex.P7 was written off the record, 20 atleast in said documents it might reflect that the accused is paying amount to P.W.1 towards discharge of original debt due to B. Ashok Kumar,
Advocate, but no where it reflects so and both the documents reflects as if the transaction is only between P.W.1 and D.W.1 and in view of discharging his liability, D.W.1 agreed to pay said amounts to P.W.1.
62.Further, D.W.1 deposed that after receiving said Rs.3,00,000/-, they again started demanding remaining Rs.13,00,000/- from him and as
B.Ashok Kumar advocate is threatening him that he will be convicted in this case, if he failed to pay remaining Rs.13,00,000/- to them, he again gave registered partition deed of his father-in-law by name Talasila Krishna Murthy to B. Ashok Kumar advocate towards security of said Rs.13,00,000/-.
63.If that is so, what prevented him in examining said Talasila
Krishna Murthy on his behalf was not explained. Except the accused himself, he did not examine any other witness on his behalf for the reasons best known to him. Even after getting cheated by these many times, again giving regd. Partition deed of his father-in-law towards security of Rs.13,00,000/- is highly suspicious and in such circumstances, what prevented him in taking legal action against them was not explained.
64.Further, D.W.1 deposed that he transferred Rs.1,00,000/- to B.
Ashok Kumar, Advocate under various Phone pay transactions and in proof of the same, he got marked Exs.D2, D3.
65.Pertaining to this aspect, D.W.1 admitted in his cross- examination that there are financial transactions took place between him and said Ashok Kumar and he did not mention the purpose in the phone pay transaction, regarding which he transferred above said Rs.25,000/-,
Rs.25,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.23,000/- to D. Ashok Kumar.
21
66.From this, it is admitted that there are financial transactions between him and Ashok Kumar and except his self-serving statement that said Rs.1,00,000/- paid towards his agreed amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, there is no other evidence that said Rs.1,00,000/- paid towards payment of amount in this case. If really he paid said amount pertaining to this case, then what prevented him to get the same recorded in this case was not explained and admittedly the opposite party is denying that the said amount was transferred pertaining to this case and so, the accused failed to prove his contention.
67.From all the above observations made, this Court is of the view that the accused utterly failed in rebutting the said presumption and so, the complainant succeeded in establishing that the accused borrowed
Rs.2,50,000/- from him under Ex.P1 and subsequently, the accused issued
Ex.P2 cheque in favour of the complainant towards part payment of legally enforceable debt.
Ingredient Nos.2 and 3 :
68.The 2nd and 3rd ingredients to establish the guilt against accused for the offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is that Cheque must be presented within 6 months or within validity period, whichever is earlier and the Cheque must be returned unpaid due to insufficient funds or it exceeds the amount arranged.
69.On perusal of Ex.P2 cheque, it is seen that it was printed on the cheque that it is valid for 3 months only and the cheque was issued on 14.8.2018.
70.Pertaining to this aspect, the contention of the complainant is that the accused issued a cheque bearing No.824811 on 14.8.2018 and the complainant had presented the said cheque for collection through his banker
State Bank of India, Nehru Nagar branch, Guntur on 14.8.2018 and the same 22 was dishonored for the reason “Funds Insufficient” and the same was intimated to the complainant by his banker through the cheque return memo dt.17.8.2018.
71.In support of his contention, P.W.1 got marked Ex.P3 i.e., cheque return memo dt.17.8.2018, which shows that cheque bearing No.
824811 was dishonored for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. Here the cheque was issued on 14.08.2018 and the same was returned on 17.8.2018, which means that the cheque was presented within 3 months of its validity period and so, the complainant succeeded in establishing that he presented the said cheque within its validity period and the same was dishonored for the reason “Funds Insufficient”.
Ingredient No.4 and 5:
72.The 4th and 5th ingredients to establish the guilt against accused for the offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is that fact of dishonor be informed to the drawer by notice within 30 days and drawer of cheque must fail to make payment within 15 days of receipt of the notice.
73.Here, the contention of the complainant is that after receipt of
Ex.P3 cheque return memo dt.17.8.2018, the complainant got issued statutory notice dt.21.8.2018 to the accused informing the dishonor of the cheque and demanded the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and the accused got it returned with postal endorsement that “addressee not in village” dt.29.8.2018 and thus the accused committed the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
74.In support of his contention, P.W.1 got marked Ex.P4 to P6.
Ex.P4 is the office copy of regd. legal notice dt.21.8.2018 and Ex.P5 is the postal receipt, Ex.P6 is the returned legal notice dt.29.8.2018.
23
75.At this juncture, the learned defence counsel argued that the statutory legal notice was not served on the accused and so, the complaint itself is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
76.Pertaining to this aspect, D.W.1 admitted in his cross- examination that he is residing at Door No.2-53, Kavuru Village,
Cherukupalli Mandal, Bapatla District (Previously Guntur District) and admitted that Kavuru Village is his native village and he was residing in the same village in the year 2018 also and admitted that the above said address was mentioned in complaint copy filed in this case and Ex.P4 legal notice was also sent to the same address.
77.At this juncture, the learned complainant counsel submitted his arguments that he successfully elicited through D.W.1 during his cross- examination that he was residing in the same address at the time of sending statutory notice in this case and at the time of filing this complaint and he intentionally evaded to receive the said legal notice and got it returned with the above said endorsement by managing postal authorities and it is a deemed service of notice and so, he served the notice within prescribed time and so, the complaint is maintainable.
78.At this juncture, this Court intends to rely upon the decision of
Hon’ble Apex Court in C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr,
2007 AIR SCW 3578, wherein it is held that :- “where the sender has dispatched the notice by post with correct address written on it, the principle incorporated in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 could profitably be imported in such a case. It was held that in this situation service of notice is deemed to have been effected on the sendee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non-service.” 24 “Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is
deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been
delivered in the ordinary course of business. This Court has already held that when a notice is sent by registered post to correct address and is returned with a postal endorsement refused or not available in the house or house locked or shop closed or addressee not in station, due service has to be presumed.” “Notice is returned with the endorsement that the premises has always been found locked or the addressee was not available at the time of postal delivery, it will be open to the complainant to prove at the trial by evidence that the endorsement is
not correct and that the addressee, namely the drawer of the cheque, with
knowledge of the notice had deliberately avoided to receive notice - it is a question of fact to be decided based on the evidence.”
79.In the present case, the accused admitted that the statutory notice was sent to his correct address and the summons in this case was also sent to the same address and so, the Court shall presume under
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act that the statutory notice has been duly served on the respondent and so, the complainant discharged his initial burden of proof of service of notice. Now the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the said presumption and to prove that it was not really served on him and that he was not responsible for such non-service. But, the accused utterly failed to rebut said presumption and so, the complainant succeeded in proving that the accused deliberately avoided to receive the notice and in such circumstances, it is deemed that the notice was duly served on the accused within 30 days, as the cheque was dishonoured on 17.8.2018 and statutory notice was sent on 21.8.2018. The complainant also succeeded in proving that the accused failed to make payment within 15 days of receipt of the notice and hence, the complainant succeeded in proving Ingredient
Nos.4 and 5.
25
80.Thus, the complainant establishes all the ingredients under
Section 138 of the NI Act to bring home the guilt of the accused.
81. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is held that complainant establishes guilt of accused under Section 138 of the NI Act, beyond all reasonable doubts.
82.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16th day of APRIL, 2026.
Sd/- V. Deepthi,
Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class-
cum- Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.
Hearing on Sentence:
55.On questioning about the quantum of sentence that has to be imposed against the accused:
56.The accused submitted that he is having small children and he is the sole bread earner of the family and he requested to take lenient view.
57.On considering the facts of the case, as the main object of
Section 138 of the Act is to avoid the malignant practice of indiscriminate issuance of cheque without sufficient funds, the court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply Provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. However, in view of the submissions of the accused and gravity of the case, the court is inclined to take balanced view in imposing sentence.
26
58.Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of accused, following sentence is delivered to meet ends of justice.
59.Accordingly, accused is sentenced to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of 6 months (Six months) and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. In default of payment of compensation, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months. Accused did not undergo any detention.
60.It is informed to the convict that he has right to prefer appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge’s
Court, Guntur. Further, the accused also informed about the availability of free legal aid services to prefer an appeal.
The office is directed to serve the copy of Judgment to the accused, forthwith.
Pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 16th day of
APRIL, 2026.
Sd/- V. Deepthi,
Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class- cum- Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
Prosecution: Defence: P.W.1: Shaik Musheer. D.W.1: P. Hari Narayana.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1:Original promissory note dt.6.7.2017 for Rs.2,50,000/- executed in favour of complainant.
27
Ex.P2:Cheque bearing No.824811, dt.14.8.2018 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Agricultural college, Bapatla. Ex.P3:Cheque return memo dt.17.8.2018. Ex.P4:Office copy of legal notice dt.21.8.2018 along with postal receipt. Ex.P5:Postal Receipt dt.21.08.2018 issued by the accused. Ex.P6:Returned Legal notice dt.29.8.2018 issued by the accused. Ex.P7:Letter written by the accused dt.23.8.2023.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE
Ex.D1:Photostat copy of Receipt dt.21.12.2022 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued by complainant. Ex.D2:Statement of ICICI Bank account of accused, which discloses UPI payment of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- to UPI No.9515134579@ybl. Ex.D3 :Statement of Axis Bank account of accused, which discloses UPI payment of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.23,000/- to Ashok Kumar.
Material Objects Marked for Prosecution -NIL-
Sd/- V. Deepthi,
P.J.M.F.C-cum-P.C.J.
(J.D), Guntur.