Dr Yeedu Srinivasa Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT – CUM – VII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

PRESENT:

DR. Y. SRINIVASA RAO,

VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI,

ELURU.

Tuesday, this the 7th day of April, 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 274/2023.

From what Court the appeal is:Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court - Cum- Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

No. of the case in that Court: C.C.No.620/2021

No. of the Criminal Appeal:Criminal Appeal No.274/2023

Name and Description of theSmt. Sunkara Gangaratnam, W/o. late Maradani Appellant/Accused.Ramachandra Rao, Hindu, Female, Aged 57 years, R/o. D. No. 16B-14-201, Ward No. 19, Sivagopalapuram, Tangellamudi, Eluru-534005, Eluru District.

Name and description of the:1. Sri. Jana Murali Kumar, S/o. Bankim Chandra, R/o. H. Respondents/Complainant&No. 3D-4/4-19, Loya Dibba, Western Street, Eluru-534001, RespondentEluru Mandal, Eluru District, A.P.

2. The State, rep., by the Public Prosecutor, Eluru, West Godavari District.

The Sentence and Law and which:In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence it was imposed in the Trial Courtunder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and she is accordingly convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to suffer RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT for a period of One Year and she shall also pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) to the complainant as per section 357 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C within a period of Three months from today. In default of payment of said compensation amount, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Three months. Since the accused is never in Judicial Custody, the benefit under section 428 of Cr.P.C is not applicable to accused.

Whether confirmed, modified or reversed and if modified the:

MODIFIED

modification 2 Date of presentation:19-10-2023

Date of filing:20-10-2023

Date of notice issued:25-10-2023

Date of Bail bond:--

Date of appearance:24-11-2023

Date of hearing:02-04-2026

Date of Judgment:07-04-2026

This appeal is coming for hearing before me on 02-04-2026, on perusal of grounds of appeal and the evidence available on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri Seela Jaya Babu, Advocate for Appellant/Accused; and of Sri G. Babu Ganesh, Advocate for the 1st respondent; and Additional Public Prosecutor, for the 2nd Respondent/State and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T:-

1.The Criminal present appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Accused under Section 374 of Cr.P.C against the Calendar and judgment, dated 06.10.2023 in C.C. No. 620/2021 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, which convicted her under

Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, praying that this Court to set aside the said Calendar and Judgment and to acquit her of the charges by allowing the appeal. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed before Trial Court.

2.The case of the Complainant, in brief, as infra:

The Complainant filed the above case alleging that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant pleads that the accused borrowed

Rs.5,00,000/- on 14.07.2019 for personal and family needs and to clear debts.

The accused agreed to repay with interest at the rate of Rs.2/- per hundred per month and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant. After 3 repeated demands for repayment the accused issued cheque number 000114 for Rs.5,00,000/- dated 28.06.2021 as part payment of the promissory note.

The cheque was presented for collection at State Bank of India, Bazar Branch,

Eluru, and it was returned with an endorsement of funds insufficient. After receipt of the cheque return memo the complainant sent a legal notice dated 05.07.2021 but the accused did not comply. The complainant alleges that the accused issued the invalid cheque which amounts to offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal

Code. Hence the complaint.

3.On perusal of the material on record the case was taken on file by Trial court for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. After receipt of summons the accused appeared before

Trial Court through his counsel. Copies of the case documents were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The accused was later examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegations in the complaint were explained to her. The accused denied the allegations and claimed to be tried.

4.Before Trial Court, the complainant was examined as PW.1 and the attestor of the promissory note was examined as PW.2 and exhibits Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.5 were marked.

5.On merits the Trial Court convicted the accused and this present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the Calendar and judgment, dated 06.10.2023 in C.C. No. 620/2021 passed by the Principal

Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, which convicted her under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and sentenced her under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. to undergo 4 rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant within three months and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and the appellant prays that the conviction and sentence be set aside and that she be acquitted.

6.Aggrieved by the same, the Appeallant/Accused filed criminal appeal with the following grounds:-

1. The Calendar and Judgment of the Trial Court are contrary to the Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2. The Trial Court failed to comply with the Principles under Section 3 of

Indian Evidence Act in evaluating and appreciating the entire evidence is adjudicating the case under appeal.

3. The Trial Court failed to consider that as there was no clinching evidence to prove the transaction under Ex.P.5 Promissory Note to show the existence of legally enforceable debt, no presumption under

Section 139 of N.I. Act could be drawn in respect of Ex.P.1 cheque, only basing on the admission of signature of Ex.P.1 cheque as the appellant superficially denied the transaction whatsoever with the 1st respondent any manner either under Ex.P.5 Promissory Note or issuance of cheque under Ex.P.5 and in such case the burden to prove the transaction under Ex.P.5 as well as issuance of Ex.P.1 cheque is on the 1st respondent, which the Trial Court ignored to consider.

4. The Trial Court failed to consider that in the cross examination of

Respondent/Complainant as P.W.1, is clearly admitted that I am a white ration card holder I do not know whether the Government will issue white ration card holder I do not know whether the Government will issue white ration card to the persons whose income below

Rs.1,00,000/- which is not negotiable/enforceable under Law. As such the Trial Court ought not to have drawn the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act only based on mere admission of financial capacity on 5 Ex.P.1 cheque.

5. The Trial Court ought to have considered that the appellant/accused got elicited probable circumstances to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act.

6. The Trial Court failed to consider the appellant her friend said Hepsiba obtaining lone from the 1st respondent on that time he take cheque and promissory note to security from appellant, the said Hepsiba discharge entire debt but the 1st respondent not return the security cheque and promissory note the appellant Government Employee he take advantage file complaint to gain unlawfully the 1st respondent got filed the false case in Trial court though the complainant by forging, fabricating the above cheque. In fact the appellant no acquaintance with the complainant/respondent at any point of time and the and the cheque and promissory notes were fabricated documents and no consideration was passed between the appellant/accused and complainant/ respondent. The complainant/respondent taking advantage of that the accused/appellant is a Government employee shall demand him for more payment for wrong full gain. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the appellant/accused in support of her defence.

7. The Trial Court failed to consider that in the cross examination of

Respondent/Complainant as P.W.1. is clearly admitted that from lent the amount to the accused/appellant the pronote executed dated on 14.07.2019 on time 10.30 to 11.00am as evaluated on that time the appellant Government Employee she is on duty she her staying her office and determined by necessarily taking into consideration the above evidence, which, the Trial Court totally ignored. Had the Trial

Court considered the said evidence, the ultimate conclusion ought to have drawn by the Trial Court that the presumption under 139 of N.I.

Act was able to rebut by the appellant/accused.

6

8. The Trial Court erroneously placed reliance on the Judgments of Hon'ble

Supreme Court as observed in Para No. 31, 33 and 34, which are squarely not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case under appeal and erroneously convicted the appellant by brushing aside the citations relied on by the appellant to support his contention.

9. The Trial Court failed to consider that the 1st respondent failed to prove his financial capacity and so also the 1st respondent did not file any proof before the Trial Court to show that he was having amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- on the date of lending amount to the appellant which was elicited in his cross examination as P.W.1.

10. The Trial Court failed to consider that the 1st respondent did not disclose his avocation neither in his complaint nor in chief evidence affidavit before the Trial Court and so also the 1st respondent stated that he did not file any proof regarding his doing post office which was elicited in his cross examination as P.W.1.

11. The Trial Court failed to consider that the 1st respondent failed to examine the attesters of the Ex.P.5 promissory note and ought to have held that the 1st respondent fabricated the same.

12. The Trial Court failed to consider that the 1st respondent/PW.1 failed to any document to show that withdraw the amount from the bank on that day and he did not file the income tax return before the Trial Court and the Trial Court ought to have held that the alleged money is an unaccounted one and hence, no presumption could have been drawn under Sec. 118 and 139 of N.I. Act.

13. The Trial Court failed to consider the citations submitted by the appellant before the Trial Court viz., 1) Kanakamedala Venkata

Krishna Vs Peram Sai Swarupa of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh with regard to the failure to prove the financial capacity, non- examination of attesters, non filing of any income tax returns by the 1st respondent before the Trial Court, 2) K. Subramani Vs Damodara 7 Naidu of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with failure on the part of the 1st respondent to produce the bank statement to show that his lending amount under Ex.P.5 promissory note and 3) Basalingappa Vs

Mudibasappa of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with regard to probable defense raised by the appellant that the 1st respondent failed to prove his financial capacity.

14. In any view of the matter, the conclusion of the Trial Court regarding the guilt of the appellant/accused, conviction and sentence imposed including the fine on her is unsustainable which shows that the said judgment is predetermined with full of surmises and the same is liable to be set-aside.

For these grounds, the appellant, therefore, prays this Court to set-aside the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for a period of One year and

Rs.5,00,000/- which is to paid to the 1st respondent as compensation, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, under the Calendar and Judgment dt.06.10.2023 in C.C.No. 620/2021 on the file of the learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, West

Godavari District and thereby acquit the Appellant/Accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. of Act.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now, the point to determination is whether the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellant/Accused in the Calendar and Judgment dated 06-10-2023 in C.C. No.620/2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, are sustainable under law and on facts, and whether the same are liable to be set aside by acquitting the

Appellant/Accused of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act?

8 Point :—

9.This is a case of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The complainant contends that the accused borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- on 14.07.2019 for personal and family needs and to clear debts. The accused agreed to repay with interest at the rate of Rs.2/- per hundred per month and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant. After repeated demands for repayment the accused issued cheque number 000114 for

Rs.5,00,000/- dated 28.06.2021 as part payment of the promissory note. The cheque was presented for collection at State Bank of India, Bazar Branch,

Eluru, and it was returned with an endorsement of funds insufficient. After receipt of the cheque return memo the complainant sent a legal notice dated 05.07.2021 but the accused did not comply. The complainant alleges that the accused issued the invalid cheque which amounts to offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal

Code.

10.The learned counsel for the Appeallant/Accused argues that the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Trial Court failed to apply the basic principles of Section 3 of the Evidence Act in evaluating the entire evidence and adjudicating the case. The Trial Court ignored that there was no clinching evidence to prove the transaction alleged to be evidenced by Ex.P5 (promissory note), and therefore no presumption under Section 139 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act could lawfully be drawn in respect of Ex.P1 (cheque) merely because the signature on Ex.P1 was admitted. The counsel emphasised that the appellant had broadly denied any transaction with the 1st respondent/complainant, whether the promissory note (Ex.P5) or the issuance of the cheque (Ex.P1), and that once the appellant raised this denial the burden to prove the alleged transaction and issuance lay squarely on the 1st respondent, a burden the Trial Court ignored. Reference was also made to 9 admissions elicited in cross-examination of PW.1 (the complainant), including statements about being a white ration card holder and uncertainty about the government’s ration-card eligibility thresholds, which the counsel argued undermined any presumption of financial capacity; further, the Trial Court overlooked material contemporaneous facts (including that the appellant, a government employee, was on duty at the time the promissory note was purportedly executed) which together created probable circumstances sufficient to rebut any presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act.

11.The learned counsel for the accused further pointed out that the Trial

Court failed to consider evidence and allegations pointing to fabrication and falsification of documents and argues that it was the case that a third person,

Hepsiba, had taken a loan from the 1st respondent and had, according to the appellant’s account left the cheque and promissory note with the appellant as security; though Hepsiba allegedly discharged the debt, the 1st respondent did not return those securities and instead filed a false complaint relying on forged documents. The Trial Court overlooked that the appellant had no acquaintance with the complainant and that no consideration had passed between them. Crucially, the 1st respondent did not prove his financial capacity (no evidence of possessing Rs.5,00,000/- on the date of lending), did not disclose his avocation nor produce bank withdrawal records or income-tax returns, and failed to examine the attestors to Ex.P5, matters which, if considered, would have shown the alleged amount to be unaccounted and negatived the applicability of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I.

Act. Finally, the counsel submitted that the Trial Court erred in placing reliance on certain Supreme Court judgments (paras 31, 33 and 34) which were said to be inapplicable to the facts of the case and in brushing aside the authorities cited by the defence. And that he relied on Kanakamedala Venkata Krishna

Prasad v. Peram Sai Swarupa & Another, 2016 Supreme (AP) 658, and K

Subramani vs K Damodara Naidu, 2015 AIR SCW 64, 2015 (1) SCC 99.

10 This Court will show later on the reasons hustling that the complainant established his case and these two rulings are not helpful to the defence of accused in this case on hand.

12.In Kanakamedala Venkata Krishna Prasad v. Peram Sai Swarupa &

Another, 2016 Supreme (AP) 658, It was held as follows:

“The Court below further observed that regarding the sources of income stated by the appellant/complainant, he did not disclose and filed any scrap of evidence to show that he got salary of Rs.15,000/- per month after deductions. So also failed to prove that saving the same from his rents, salary and some amount, which was released from deposits, the amount kept in the Court. So, in the absence of any such proof has been filed by the appellant/complainant, the huge amount much less Rs.5 lakhs appears to unbelievable one."

13.In K Subramani v. K Damodara Naidu, 2015 AIR SCW 64, 2015 (1)

SCC 99. It was held as follows:

“Three Judge Bench of this Court in the decision in Rangappa's case (supra) laid down that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the N.I. Act includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability and that is a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. Relying on the said ratio the Hon'ble High Court answered the two legal issues raised by it in the impugned judgment. Though the criminal appeals were preferred against the judgment of acquittal passed in all the cases arising under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the factual matrix and the evidence adduced were different. The High Court after answering the two legal issues did not consider the merits of each case individually and has simply remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.”

14.It is now significant to see the relevant rulings which are essential to consider in this case. In Rangappa vs Sri Mohan, AIR 2010 SUPREME

COURT 1898, it was observed as follows:

'6. Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised by the Court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to in Section 139 of the N.I. Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut the said 11 presumption. What is required to be established by the accused in order to rebut the presumption is different from each case under given circumstances. But the fact remains that a mere plausible explanation is not expected from the accused and it must be more than a plausible explanation by way of rebuttal evidence. In other words, the defence raised by way of rebuttal evidence must be probable and capable of being accepted by the Court. The defence raised by the accused was that a blank cheque was lost by him, which was made use of by the complainant. Unless this barrier is crossed by the accused, the other defence raised by him whether the cheque was issued towards the hand loan or towards the amount spent by the complainant need not be considered....' Hence, the High Court concluded that the alleged discrepancies on part of the complainant which had been noted by the Trial Court were not material since the accused had failed to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption placed on him by Section 139 of the Act.

15.In Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand

Pyarelal,(1993) 3 SCC 35 (Para. 12):

"Upon consideration of various judgments as noted herein above, the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbably or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief onthe basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non- existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118(a) in his favour. The court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt. The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff. To disprove the presumption, the defendant has to bring on record such facts 12 and circumstances upon consideration of which the court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that it did not exist."

16.In M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Anr. v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 234 (Para. 19):

"... The authority shows that even when the cheque is dishonoured by reason of stop payment instruction, by virtue of Section 139 the Court has to presume that the cheque was received by the holder for the discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or liability. Of course this is a rebuttable presumption. The accused can thus show that the `stop payment' instructions were not issued because of insufficiency or paucity of funds. If the accused shows that in his account there was sufficient funds to clear the amount of the cheque at the time of presentation of the cheque for encashment at the drawer bank and that the stop payment notice had been issued because of other valid causes including that there was no existing debt or liability at the time of presentation of cheque for encashment, then offence under Section 138 would not be made out. The important thing is that the burden of so proving would be on the accused. ..."

17.The ratio-decidendi in the above cases can be applied to this present appeal. Coming to the facts if this case, it is curious to see that a perusal of the entire evidence available on the record and findings of the Trial Court, this

Court is in no doubt to conclude that the complainant/respondent established his case for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act.

18.It is not disputed that Ex.P1 cheque was drawn on the accused’s account at Andhra Bank, Gowravaram Branch, Eluru. Ex.P1 was returned with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”, as shown by the bank’s return memo

Ex.P2, which the accused does not challenge. The complainant sent a legal notice (Ex.P3) on 05.07.2021 calling on the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days, and service of that notice is proved by Ex.P4. The cheque dishonour, the unpaid amount after notice, and the proved return memo together gave rise to prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. Having regard to the statutory presumptions under Sections 13 118 and 139 of the Act, the Trial Court’s findings on these facts are sustainable.

19.The plea of accused that the cheque and promissory note were given only as security for a loan taken by one Hepsiba, that that debt was already discharged, or that the accused never borrowed the Ex.P5 amount from the complainant, were not proved. Since these defenses failed, the Trial Court rightly held that the complainant established the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

20.Mulling over all these facts and circumstances, this court holds this is a case in which section 357(4) of the Cr.P.C. must be invoked to meet the ends of justice as to the facts and circumstances of this case and that the Calendar and judgment dated 06.10.2023 in C.C. No. 620/2021 passed by the Principal

Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, is liable to be modified. And the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year is to be set aside, as the accused is woman, a fortiori, she is old aged. Having regard to the fact that the accused is a woman and has made part payment of

Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on 16-03-2026 during the pendency of this appeal, and in the interest of justice, it is just, fair and reasonable to direct the accused to pay to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant within three months from the date of this judgment. I find the point accordingly.

21.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The Calendar and

Judgment dated 06.10.2023 in C.C. No. 620/2021 passed by the Principal

Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, is hereby modified. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year/fine and the default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months are set aside.

However, having regard to the fact that the accused is a old aged woman and has made part payment to the complainant during the pendency of this 14 appeal, and in the interest of justice, the accused is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) under Section 357(4) of the Cr.P.C to the complainant within three months from the date of this judgment. In default of payment of the compensation, accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for term of three months.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Y. Srinivasa Rao,

VII Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral and documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- Y. Srinivasa Rao,

VII A.D.S.J.,

W.G., Eluru.

Copy to:

Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court -Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

(with Trial Court record).

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT – CUM – VII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

PRESENT:

DR. Y. SRINIVASA RAO,

VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI,

ELURU.

Wednesday, this the 25th day of March, 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 112/2025.

From what Court the appeal is:Principal Civil Judge's Court (Junior Division) -Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

No. of the case in that Court: C.C.No.533/2021

No. of the Criminal Appeal:Criminal Appeal No.112/2025

Name and Description of theGantasala Malleswari, W/o. Venkanna, Female, aged 55 Appellant/Accused.years, R/o. H.No.2-15, Chintalapudi, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District.

Name and description of the:1. Kohler Aqua, rep. by its Prop. Sri K.S.V.R. Prabhu, S/o. Respondents/Complainant&Nagaeswara Rao, Male, aged 53 years, R/o. Canal Road, RespondentEluru, West Godavari District, Rep. by their Sales Manager namely Paulswamy Padmanaban, S/o. Paulswamy, Male, aged 55 years, Sales Manager in Kohler Aqua, Eluru, R/o. D.No.25-18-6/1, Santhi Nagar, 5th Road, Eluru, West Godavari District.

2. The State, rep., by the Public Prosecutor, Eluru, West Godavari District.

The Sentence and Law and which:In the result, Accused found guilty for the offence it was imposed in the Trial Courtpunishable Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, and she is convicted under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. and she is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of one (1) year for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Further the accused shall pay an amount of Rs.7,38,076.25/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Seventy Six and Twenty Five Paise only), being the cheque amount, to the complainant towards compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., within two months from the date of Judgment in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

2 Whether confirmed, modified or reversed and if modified the:

MODIFIED

modification

Date of presentation:30-06-2025

Date of filing:30-06-2025

Date of notice issued:01-07-2025

Date of Bail bond:--

Date of appearance:01-08-2025

Date of hearing:23-03-2026

Date of Judgment:25-03-2026

This appeal is coming for hearing before me on 23-03-2026, on perusal of grounds of appeal and the evidence available on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri Polumatla Syam Sagar, Advocate for Appellant/Accused; and of Sri K.V.P. Madhava Rao, Advocate for the 1st respondent; and Additional Public Prosecutor, for the 2nd Respondent/State and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T:-

1.This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, preferred by the Appellant/Accused challenging the judgment dated 06.06.2025 passed in C.C.No.533/2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, and the

Appellant/Accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and was convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and further directed to pay Rs.7,38,076.25/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand

Seventy Six and Twenty Five Paise only) towards compensation, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months, with a direction to pay the said compensation to the complainant within two months under Section 357(3)

Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Appellant/Accused prays this Court to set aside the said judgment and sentence and to acquit the Appellant/Accused by allowing this appeal. For convenience, the parties referred to as they arrayed before the Trial Court.

3

2.The case of the complainant, in brief, as follows:

The complainant is a businessman and he runs M/s. Kohler Aqua at

D.No. 4-1-28, Canal Road, Eluru, West Godavari District, and he sells prawn feed on cash and on credit to prawn culture farmers and the trade practice is that credit bill amounts carry interest at 24 percent per annum after one month. The Appellant/Accused was said to have approached the complainant and opened a katha account with the firm and purchased prawn feed on credit and as per the complainant ledger the accused was due Rs.7,38,076.25/- as on 22.02.2020 and the accused promised to pay within one month. After one month the complainant demanded payment many times but the accused postponed payment on one pretext or another and finally on 08.04.2021 the accused issued cheque No. 184558 for Rs. 7,38,076.25/- drawn on State

Bank of India, Kaikaluru A.D.B., Kaikaluru Branch, Krishna District, in favour of the complainant towards part satisfaction of the katha debt. The complainant presented the cheque through Axis Bank, Eluru Branch, and the cheque was returned on 12.04.2021 with the endorsement funds insufficient and a return memo dated 12.04.2021. The complainant again approached the accused for clearance of the debt but the accused did not pay any amount and the complainant alleges that the accused intentionally cheated and issued a worthless cheque knowing there were insufficient funds and induced the complainant by promising repayment but failed to discharge the debt. The complainant then issued a registered legal notice dated 24.04.2021 demanding payment of the cheque amount and the notice cover was endorsed door locked on 27.04.2021 and left without instructions on 05.05.2021 and it was returned to the complainant advocate on 10.05.2021.

Later the accused with knowledge of the notice telephoned the complainant and requested 15 days time to pay but failed and the complainant filed this complaint after expiry of the notice period. The cheque was presented at Axis

Bank, Eluru, within the limits of Eluru I Town Law and Order Police Station 4 and therefore the accused is liable for punishment under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the complaint.

3.The case was taken on file by the Trial Court against the accused for the offences under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881, and it was numbered as C.C.No.533/2021. The accused appeared

before the Trial Court and copies of the documents were furnished to her

under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Section 251

Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was explained to her in Telugu and she denied the accusation and pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 were marked and the accountant of Kohler Aqua was examined as P.W.2. After closure of the complainant evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material was put to her and she denied the same and stated that she would adduce defence evidence. The accused examined herself as D.W.1 and Ex.D.1 to

Ex.D.4 were marked.

4.The Trial Court by judgment dated 06.06.2025 found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted her under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced her to simple imprisonment for one year and directed her to pay Rs.7,38,076.25/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and directed payment of compensation to the complainant within two months under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.

5.Aggrieved by the same the accused preferred this criminal appeal with the following grounds:—

1. The judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant/accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 and 5 accordingly, she is convicted for the same under Section 255 (2)

Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, further the accused shall pay an amount of Rs.7,38,076.25/- being the cheque amount to the complainant towards compensation under section 373 (2)

Cr.P.C, within two months from today in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the circumstances of the case and passed judgment without eye of law.

3. The Trial Court came into erroneous conclusion in deciding the case for determination, i.e., whether the complaint is maintainable or not for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

4. The appellant submits that the Trial Court passed the judgment on 06- 06-2025 that without considering the arguments of the appellant/accused.

5. The appellant submits that the Trial Court failed to observe the actual facts of the case and passed the judgment only on presumption but not eye of law.

6. The Trial Court ought to have considered the circumstances of the case, but, the Trial Court kept quiet for the sake of presumption but not to do justice. It is very in-justice to the appellant/accused and she sustained loss from her relief.

7. The Trial Court came into erroneous conclusion in convicting the appellant/accused without observations at the length of settle law.

8. The Trial Court failed to observe the weather the testimony of the evidence of the facts since the 1st respondent/complainant failed to prove that there is legally recoverable debt payable by the appellant/accused.

6

9. The Trial Court failed to take the cross examination of the petitioner/appellant into consideration and gave its judgment manually without observing and considering the arguments filed by the appellant/accused.

10. The Trial Court should have seen whether the complaint under

Section138 of N.I. Act is maintainable or not, but the Trial Court simply came to conclusion and convicted the appellant though the offence is technical one and no reasons on the technical side. Hence, the Trial

Court committed mistake on this aspect.

11. The judgment of the Trial Court is full of surmises and is not based on any sound reasoning, it like as cyclostyle judgment.

12. The Trial Court should have seen by percolating the circumstances with regard to proceedings of the case.

13. The Trial Court failed to consider that further as per settled law, who filed the complaint he has to prove his case beyond the reasonable doubt by way of ingredients to the N.I. Act, the observations and findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the revision petitioner has to be acquitted.

14. The Trial Court without discussing the contents of the complaint and unfortunately convicted the appellant.

15. The Trial Court failed to consider that her evidence in chief-examination affidavit deposed that, the appellant/accused is house wife and did not do any fish or pawn culture at any point of time, the appellant/accused has no transactions with the respondent/plaintiff company at any point of time and in any manner then the credit relationship with them does not arise, her husband namely Venkanna was daily wage earner and he also did not do any pawn culture and he was passed away on 01.09.2020 by suffering with severe paralysis and bed ridden since two years prior to his demise, hence, they have no relation in any manner with the the appellant/accused, if the respondent/complainant has 7 ample proof they might be filed the said ledger accounts containing the signature of her before the Court to prove their case, but they did not file such original ledger and other records containing her signatures before the Court, which clearly shows that, the respondent/complainant filed their complaint with false averments, the cheque belongs to her, but she did not give such cheque to the respondent/complainant at any point time and the signature on the said cheque does not belong to her and it might be forged for their purpose for huge amount, she has no knowledge about the missing said cheque from her house and she found the said cheque was missing after observing it in this case, hence, the appellant/accused reserves her right to send for the said cheque to the hand writing expert relating to said disputed signature on it along with her signatures relating to such period along with her contemplated signatures taken from her before the Court to prove her case, the said Ghantasala Paparao whose name was mentioned in the accounts statement of the respondent/complainant filed before the

Court was not known to her and she has no relation with him and she also has no relation the transactions between the said Paparao and the complainant herein, the respondent/complainant has to prove the relationship of the said Ghantasala Paparao with her before the Court, she is ready to file a period before the Court to get sent for the ledger copies and purchase bills alleged to her credit account containing her signatures to the Court for the kind comparison of the Court to prove her case, the respondent/complainant herein got created the said ledger accounts against her by taking advantage of availability of her cheque by forging her signature filed the respondent/complaint against her with a view to get unlawful gain from her and to harass her for the reasons well known to the respondent/complainant herein. Under the above circumstances, she has no necessity to face the case against the respondent/complainant and the said complaint is liable to be 8 dismissed, she further deposed that, in fact she is a house card holder and she has no issues and lives a sorrowful life at the mercy of her relatives at the end of her age as her husband is also no more. The petitioner/appellant is a widow and living on only her widow pension which is giving by the Government as she has no means to pay the alleged compensation amount.

16. The Trial Court failed to consider that the 1st respondent/complainant filed the complaint with a view to get wrongful gain from this appellant/accused only.

17. The Trial Court pronounced its judgment without giving opportunity to the appellant/accused for filing their written arguments by dismissing the petitions filed by her seeking for reopen judgment.

For these grounds, the appellant prays this Court to set aside the calendar and judgment in C.C.No.533/2021 dated 16-06-2025 on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) -Cum- Judicial Magistrate of 1st

Class, Eluru, West Godavari District, by allowing the Appeal and acquit the appellant/accused.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now, the point for determination is whether the judgment dated 06.06.2025 in C.C.No.533/2021 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and sentencing her to simple imprisonment for one year with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.7,38,076.25/- (in default, simple imprisonment for three months), is legal, proper and sustainable on facts and evidence, and whether the appellant is entitled to acquittal by setting aside the said conviction and sentence, as prayed for?

9 Point :—

8.PW.1 stated that he is a businessman and that he runs M/s. Kohler

Aqua at D.No.4-1-28, Canal Road, Eluru, West Godavari District, and that he sells prawn feed on cash and on credit and that the trade practice is that credit bill amounts carry interest at 24 percent per annum after one month. P.W.1 relied on Ex.P.1 and he stated that it is the notarized copy of GPA and that it authorizes prosecution of the case. PW.1 relied on Ex.P.2 and he stated that it is the attested copy of the ledger account which proves the legally enforceable debt and that it shows the accused opened a katha account and purchased prawn feed on credit and that the due was Rs.7,38,076.25/- as on 22.02.2020 and that the accused promised payment within one month. P.W.1 stated that the accused postponed payment despite repeated demands and that the accused issued Ex.P.3 cheque No. 184558 dated 08.04.2021 for Rs.

7,38,076.25/- drawn on State Bank of India, Kaikaluru A.D.B., Kaikaluru

Branch, towards part satisfaction of the katha debt. P.W.1 stated that he presented Ex.P.3 through Axis Bank, Eluru Branch, and he relied on Ex.P.4 and he stated that it is the cheque return memo dated 12.04.2021 and that it was returned for funds insufficient. P.W.1 stated that he again demanded payment but the accused did not pay and he relied on Ex.P.5 and he stated that it is the office copy of legal notice dated 24.04.2021 demanding the cheque amount. I will show later on the reasons that notice was sent to correct address. PW.1 relied on Ex.P.6 and he stated that it is the returned postal cover and that it bears endorsements door locked on 27.04.2021 and left without instructions on 05.05.2021 and returned on 10.05.2021. PW.1 stated that the accused later telephoned with knowledge of the notice and sought 15 days time, but accused did not pay the debt due to PW.1.

9.It is curious to see that Section 138 of N.I. Act deals with the offence for a cheque returned for insufficiency of funds and requires service of a statutory notice. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act deems service when a 10 registered or speed post notice is sent to the correct address. A postal cover showing door locked and left without instructions is proof of attempted delivery and that is treated as deemed service under Section 27 of the General

Clauses Act. The drawer cannot evade liability by avoiding the postman or by remaining absent at the known address. Once the notice is posted to the correct address the burden shifts to the drawer to prove non receipt and that failure to rebut means the notice period has run and that proceedings under

Section 138 of N.I. Act may be maintained. In this case on hand, accused did not contend as his address is incorrect. Therefore, it is unsafe to hold that the

Trial Court ignored this aspect of sufficient service of notice.

10.Further more, to attract section 138 of N.I. Act, the essential elements are that the cheque must be drawn on the drawer’s bank account and it must relate to an existing legally enforceable debt or liability. The cheque must be dishonoured by the bank for insufficient funds or for exceeding the arrangement with the bank. The payee must send a formal written demand to the drawer within thirty days of receiving the bank intimation of dishonour. The drawer must fail to make payment within fifteen days of receipt of that notice.

The complaint must be filed within one month from the date the cause of action arises, which is the sixteenth day after the notice is deemed received.

As is evinced from Exhibits P.1 to P.6 , the above ingredients are clearly established in this case. Of course, accused relied on Exhibits D.1 to D.4 which do not affect the theory of P.W.1.

11.DW.1 says she is a housewife and never dealt with PW.1/complainant.

She says her husband was a daily wage earner and died on 01.09.2020, and she denies any transactions with PW.1. She claims the cheque belongs to her but she never gave it to the complainant, and she says the signature on the cheque is not hers and may be forged. She also says she found the cheque missing from her house only after this case began, and she reserves the right 11 to get a handwriting expert report. When the accused clearly admits that she issued the cheque/Ex.P.3, presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act favours

PW.1.

12.D.W.1 admits the signature on her chief examination affidavit is hers, but she denies the signature on Ex.P.2. She did not have Ex.P.2 examined by an expert before trial, and she did not promptly question the documents received by her previous counsel. The defence Exs.D.1 to D.4 only show identity and family details, and they do not explain or negate the ledger entries (Ex.P.2) relied on by P.W.1.

13.To say in short, D.W.1 could not rebut evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Exhibit 'P' series under purview of section 139 of N.I. Act. Applying

Section 139 of N.I. Act, this Court presumes that Ex.P.3/cheque is valid.

14.P.W.1 also stated that he runs a prawn feed business and that the accused opened a katha in 2018 and purchased prawn feed on credit and that the accused made payments from time to time. P.W.1 stated that the ledger shows Rs.7,38,076.25/- as due on 22.02.2020 and that the accused promised payment within one month and that the accused later postponed despite repeated demands. P.W.1 stated that the accused issued cheque No.184558

dated 08.04.2021 for Rs.7,38,076.25/- towards part satisfaction of the katha

debt and that the cheque was presented through Axis Bank, Eluru, and that it was returned on 12.04.2021 for funds insufficient. These facts support issuance of cheque under Section 139 of N.I. Act as to liability and dishonour for insufficiency of funds and they attract Section 138 of the N.I. Act subject to proof of statutory notice and limitation. P.W.1 admitted that feed supply was not only after payment and that cheques were taken for the balance and that credit was given as a business practice and this admission proves the existence of a credit transaction. P.W.1 admitted Ex.P.2 entries and payments 12 of Rs.6,00,000/- on 18.12.2018 and Rs.3,00,000/- on 02.10.2019 and another cheque on page 4 by G Papa Rao and these admissions show prior dealings and part payments but they also require clear reconciliation of the final due.

P.W.1 admitted that accounts were changed when the firm moved from partnership to proprietorship and that the 22.02.2020 transaction occurred at that time and this admission creates a need for careful scrutiny of the ledger continuity and the exact outstanding. P.W.1 says that G Papa Rao is not a partner, yet his cheque appears in Ex.P.2 and this circumstance raises questions on who made payments and on whose behalf, but it does not by itself rebut the accused liability. P.W.1 stated that staff filled the columns of

Ex.P.3 and this shows he did not personally fill the cheque details but he still pleads that the accused issued and signed the cheque, so his version remains probable though it needs corroboration on signature and authority. From the above analysis, despite version of P.W.1 supports the ingredients of Section 138 N.I. Act on debt and issuance and dishonour, his admissions on account change and third party cheque make his testimony partly interested and it is further to be verified as to linkage of the cheque to the liability of accused.

15.P.W.2 stated that he is the accountant and that he maintained the entire ledger and that the accused approached the aqua shop and verified the calculations on 22.02.2020 for Rs.7,32,076.25/- and that the accused signed on the account copy which is marked as an exhibit. P.W.2 stated that the accused later issued a cheque towards the katha debt and that he filled the cheque as per instructions and that he presented the cheque in the account of

Kohler Aqua. P.W.2 admitted that the business was on credit basis and that they used to take cheques from the accused for each credit transaction and that the accused used to take feed from 2018 to 2020 and used to make payments of about Rs.4,00,000/- or Rs.5,00,000/-. PW.2 admitted that he has no idea what documents were taken at the time of giving credit and that he has no idea about the cheque amount, yet he proved that as per their 13 accounts the accused is due Rs.7,38,076/- and that the entire ledger statement was filed before the Court. PW.2 admitted that he earlier said the cheque was issued in February, 2020, but he also linked it to the katha debt and to the ledger and this inconsistency affects precision but it does not destroy the core version of issuance towards a due. P.W.2 admitted that

Ghantasala Paparao is the son of the accused and that on some occasions he issued cheques on behalf of his mother and that such transactions were shown in audit and this supports the course of dealings but it also shows third party payments which require reconciliation of liability. P.W.2 admitted that he did not submit IT returns and that he cannot say how many cheques were issued, yet he stated that other cheques were honoured and that no cheques of the accused are in their custody and that the cheque transaction is reflected in Ex.P.2. These facts support a continuing liability and a cheque issued towards that liability and dishonour would attract Section 138 of the N.I. Act, besides that evidence of P.W.2 is corroborative with evidence of P.W.1 and

Exhibits P.1 to P.6.

16.Considering that the Appellant/Accused is a 58-year-old widow, a house-hold (home) card holder with no dependants, and this is a case of quasi civil and quasi criminal, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded in C.C.No.533/2021 is confirmed, but the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year (and the alternative sentence of three months' imprisonment in default) is liable to be set aside.

Mulling over all these facts and circumstances, it is just to hold that the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year (and the alternative sentence of three months’ imprisonment in default) is liable to be set aside and to be modified that the accused shall pay Rs. 7,38,076.25/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs

Thirty-Eight Thousand Seventy-Six and Twenty-Five Paise only), being the cheque amount, to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) 14 Cr.P.C., within four months from today. In default of such payment, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. I find the point accordingly.

17.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as recorded in

C.C.No.533/2021 by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, is confirmed. The sentence of simple

imprisonment for one year (and the alternative sentence of three months’ imprisonment in default) is set aside and modified as follows: the accused shall pay Rs.7,38,076.25/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirty-Eight Thousand

Seventy-Six and Twenty-Five Paise only), being the cheque amount, to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., within four months from today. In default of such payment, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- Y. Srinivasa Rao,

VII Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral and documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- Y. Srinivasa Rao,

VII A.D.S.J.,

W.G., Eluru.

Copy to:

Principal Civil Judge's Court (Junior Division) - Cum - Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Eluru. (with Trial Court record).

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT – CUM – VII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

PRESENT:

DR. Y. SRINIVASA RAO,

VII Add. District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of March, 2026.

APPEAL SUIT NO. 30/2022

Between:

Koppula Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Pulla Reddy, Hindu, Female, aged 54 years, properties, Pragadavaram Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District, Ch.JCJ.

---Appellant/1st Defendant.

Vs

1. Gaddam Sudha Rani, W/o. Srinivasa Reddy, Hindu, Female, aged 50 years, properties, R/o. Tedlem Village, T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, Ch.JCJ.

2. Bethireddy Raja Kumari, W/o. Sridhara Reddy, Hindu, Female, aged 52 years, Pragadavaram Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District, Ch.JCJ.

---Respondents/Plaintiff & 2nd Defendant

This appeal is against the Judgment and Decree dated 12-11-2018 in

O.S.No.108/2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Chintalapudi.

Between:

Gaddam Sudha Rani. ---Plaintiff

Vs.

1. Koppula Vijaya Lakshmi,

2. Bethireddy Raja Kumari ---Defendant 2

This appeal is coming on 16-02-2026 for final hearing before me for hearing in the presence of Sri J. Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/1st defendant; and of Sri Basavaraju Gourisankar, learned counsel

for respondents/plaintiff & 2nd defendant; upon perusing the material on

record and upon hearing arguments on both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T:-

1.The Appellant/Defendant No.1 has preferred the present appeal under

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Order XLI Rule 1

C.P.C., and prays that this Court seeking to allow the appeal with costs and to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 12-11-2018 passed in O.S.

No.108/2016 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, and dismiss the suit; or in the alternative, remand the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. For convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed before the Trial Court.

2.The case of the plaintiffs, in succinct, as follows:

The plaintiff contends that she and the defendants are sisters and they are the daughters of Chilukuri Suryanarayana Reddy and Satyavathi, and the plaint schedule property is their joint family property. The plaintiff contends that after the death of their mother, defendant No.1 filed O.S. No.40/2016 in this Court in the year 2016 for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property and she made false and inconsistent pleadings. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 filed a written statement in that suit and they contended that they are co-owners and the Court cannot grant an injunction against a co-owner unless there is waste or acts that harm the rights of other legal heirs. The plaintiff contends that she is in joint legal possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property along with the defendants, and the possession of one co-owner is treated as possession on behalf of all co- 3 owners. The plaintiff further contends that the defendants did not cooperate for partition, so she does not want to continue as a joint owner with them and she filed this suit to partition the plaint schedule property into three equal shares and to give her vacant possession of her one share and to grant future profits until delivery of possession. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the above suit.

3.Denying the material averments of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 contends that her mother performed her marriage with Pullareddy and she brought him to their parents’ house as an illotam son-in-law, and later her mother also performed the marriages of the plaintiff and defendant No.2. She contends that after her mother died, she looked after her mother’s welfare and her mother gave the plaint schedule property to her by an oral gift. She contends that in the year 2013 the plaintiff and defendant No.2 raised a dispute, so the matter went before Bommareddy Naga Chandra Reddy,

Kanamatha Chandra Sekahra Reddy, and Kanamatha Ajay Kumar Reddy, and during that settlement she paid Rs.60,000/- to the plaintiff and Rs.60,000/- to defendant No.2 but she did not take any document from them. She contends that they are now taking advantage of the absence of documents and they filed the present suit for partition. She further contends that the present suit also relates to the insurance amount payable to her mother and the gold ornaments weighing about 9 sovereigns, and she claims that those gold ornaments are in the custody of their maternal aunt Vijaya Kumari.

Therefore, she prays that the Court may dismiss the suit.

4.Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the issues for trial as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary decree for partition as prayed for and to what relief, and during the trial the plaintiff examined herself as

PW.1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, while on behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 examined herself as DW.2 and no documents were marked.

4

5.On merits the Trial Court decreed the suit and granted a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares and allotted one such share to the plaintiff. The Court directed that the metes and bounds of the plaintiff’s share be fixed and that possession be given within three months from the date of the Judgment. The Court further directed that future profits be ascertained on a separate application to be filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment the defendant filed this appeal with following grounds:—

1. The Judgment and Decree of the Trail Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2. The Decree and Judgment of the Trail Court is against the preponderances and probabilities of the case.

3. The Trail Court ought to have dismissed the suit, as the respondent/plaintiff failed to produce the any material or oral evidence with regard to the partition of all of their properties keeping the plaint schedule property jointly, as was pleaded in her pleadings.

4. The Trail Court ought to have dismissed the suit by believing the version of the appellant/1st defendant that the husband of the appellant viz., Pullareddy was taken as illatom son-in-law by the parents of appellant/1st defendant, and since then all the family burden of appellant was looked after by the appellant/ defendant including the marriages of respondents.

5. The Trail Court ought to have dismissed the suit by believing the version of the appellant that oral gift of the plaint schedule property by her mother in lieu of looked after the welfare of the family by the appellant and her husband as was pleaded in her statement, as such there was question of partition with regard to the plaint schedule property does not arise.

5

6. The Trail Court ought to have believed that the appellant in spite of oral gift of the plain schedule property by her mother, she paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- each to the respondents, in the presence of elders with a view to have cordial relations in between them, as they are being natural sisters and dismiss the suit of the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

7. The Trail Court ought not to have decreed the suit merely basing on the fact the appellant failed to adduce the evidence of elders which was settled before the said elders.

8. The Trail Court erroneously discussed the case and decreed the suit as, 2nd respondent is well aware of the facts as such she has not contested the suit which itself speaks volumes of truth. And the Trail

Court ought to have believed the statement filed by the appellant and dismissed the suit.

9. The Trail Court ought to have believe that the entries in the revenue records in favor appellant itself speaks the existence of oral gift in favor of appellant with regard to title over the schedule property which was not questioned by respondents till filing of Injunction suit as

O.S.40/2016.

10. The Trail Court ought to have dismissed the suit as the prima-facie burden was not discharged by the 2nd respondent/plaintiff and in the absence of the non-discharging of the burden of the defendants to disprove the claim of the plaintiff regarding the plaint schedule property.

11. The Trial Court ought not to have coming to conclusion merely basing on the oral evidence of the 1st respondent/plaintiff in the absence to any documentary or oral evidence adduced by the 1st respondent/plaintiff which related to the plaint schedule property.

6

12. The Trail Court ought not to have believed the evidence of the 1st respondent/plaintiff with regard to the alleged partition during life time of their parents leaving the plaint schedule property in the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the Plaint schedule property, and thereby dismissed the suit of the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

13. The Trail Court ought to have dismissed the suit as the valuation of the suit is not correct, as there is no joint possession over the plaint schedule property.

14. The Trail Court ought to have dismissed the suit, as the present suit filed as counter blast proceedings of O.S.No.40/2016 filed by the appellant.

For these grounds, the appellant/1st defendant prays this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the Decree and Judgment in O.S.108/2016 dt.12-11-2018 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Chintalapudi, and remand the matter with a permission to the Appellant/1st defendant to adduce rebuttal evidence in view of the erroneous conclusions and presumptions of the Trail Court.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Whether the Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit for partition and ordering allotment of one third share to the plaintiff when the defendant contends that the plaint schedule property was given to her by an oral gift and that the plaintiff and defendant No.2 accepted consideration, and accordingly whether the Judgment and Decree dated 12-11-2018 in O.S. No.108/2016 shall be set aside and the suit dismissed or alternatively remanded to the Trial

Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, as prayed for?

7

Point:-

8.The learned counsel for the appellant argues that the Trial Court should have dismissed the suit because the plaintiff did not prove her case with proper oral or documentary evidence. He submits that the Court should have accepted the appellant’s version that her husband was taken as an illotam son in law and that the appellant and her husband supported the family, and therefore the claim for partition does not stand. He further contends that the plaint schedule property was orally gifted to the appellant by her mother in recognition of such support, so no question of partition arises. He also states that the appellant paid Rs.60,000/- to each respondent in the presence of elders only to maintain cordial relations and this did not create any right to seek partition. He argues that the suit could not be decreed merely because the appellant did not examine the elders and that the Court wrongly drew adverse conclusions from the second respondent not contesting the case. He adds that the revenue entries in the appellant’s favour support the oral gift and the respondents never questioned those entries until the suit, and he concludes that the plaintiff failed to discharge the initial burden of proof and the Court therefore ought to have dismissed the suit.

9.The learned counsel for the appellant further argues that the Trial Court should not have decreed the suit only on the oral testimony of the plaintiff when she did not produce any reliable documentary or supporting oral evidence relating to the plaint schedule property. He submits that the Court should not have accepted the plaintiff’s claim of an earlier partition during the lifetime of the parents while leaving the plaint schedule property, because there was no documentary proof for such a case. He also contends that the suit valuation is incorrect since the parties were not in joint possession of the plaint schedule property, and he further states that the suit was filed only as a counterblast to O.S. No.40/2016 instituted by the appellant.

8

10.The plaintiff and the defendants are sisters and they are the children of

Chilukuri Suryanarayana Reddy and Satyavathi. Their mother died intestate and the plaint schedule property stood in her name. Defendant No.1 claimed that the mother gave the property to her by an oral gift and that her name was once mutated in the revenue records. The plaintiff asserted joint ownership and sought partition because the defendants did not cooperate.

11.Under the Hindu Succession Act the property of a female Hindu who dies intestate devolves upon her heirs. The children of the deceased mother take as heirs and succeed to her property. The sisters therefore inherit the plaint schedule property as co-heirs and they are entitled to share the estate.

The Trial Court correctly treated the property as joint family property of the three sisters in view of the intestacy and the admitted facts. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that possession of PW.1 is constructive and Court Fee paid is correct.

12.Curiously enough, in G. Venkata Subba Reddy v. State(1977 (1)

ALT(NRC) 64), it was held that an oral gift of land by a Hindu father to his daughter at the time of her marriage is not valid in law and such a gift can only be made by a registered deed as required by Section 123 of the Transfer of

Property Act. The Court held that an instrument of gift is complete and becomes effective only when it is registered. The Court further held that the provisions of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act would not apply to the gift of land alleged to have been made by the petitioner to his daughter.

13.Defendant No.1 relied on an oral gift to defeat the claim for partition.

The defendant however did not prove the oral gift. There is no independent witness to the alleged settlement and the mutation in revenue records was cancelled. On the evidence the Court rightly held that the oral gift was not 9 established and that the property remained joint.

14.Here, it is apt to refer to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which reads as follows:-

"Section 15: General rules of succession in the case of female

Hindus 15(1) The General Order of Succession The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16,—

(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;

(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;

(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;

(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and

(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. 15(2) Exceptions for Inherited Property Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1):

(a) Any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father.

(b) Any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband."

15.The plaintiff is entitled to partition and her appeal fails and is dismissed is clear from other reasons. The mother died intestate and the plaint schedule property descended to her children as heirs, and under Section 15 of the

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Class I heirs inherit equally. The defendant No.1 claimed an oral gift and said she paid sums to the other sisters, but she did not prove the gift or produce independent witnesses, and the revenue mutation in her name was cancelled. The Trial Court rightly found that there is no evidence to show the property passed to defendant No.1 and that the 10 property remains joint, and therefore the plaintiff has a right to one third share.

16.The Trial Court decree for preliminary partition must be confirmed and the appeal must be dismissed without costs. The plaintiff proved joint possession and entitlement, and the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of joint ownership under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956.

17.Mulling over all these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit for partition and ordering allotment of one third share to the plaintiff when the defendant contends that the plaint schedule property was given to her by an oral gift and that the plaintiff and defendant No.2 accepted consideration, and therefore the

Judgment and Decree dated 12-11-2018 in O.S. No.108/2016 cannot be set aside.

18.For these reasons the decree for preliminary partition must be upheld.

This Court holds that the present appeal is misconceived and must fail. In find the point in the negative.

19.In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and Decree dated 12-11-2018 passed in O.S. No.108/2016 on the file of the Court of the Junior

Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, is hereby confirmed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- Y. Srinivasa Rao,

VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- Y. Srinivasa Rao,

VII A.D.J.,

West Godavari, Eluru.

Copy to:

The Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division), Chintalapudi (along with Trial Court record).

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT – CUM – VII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

PRESENT:

DR. Y. SRINIVASA RAO,

VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI,

ELURU.

Tuesday, this the 7th day of April, 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 154/2022.

From what Court the appeal is:Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Excise) - Cum - IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

No. of the case in that Court: C.C.No.154/2018

No. of the Criminal Appeal:Criminal Appeal No.154/2022

Name and Description of theMohammad Irfan, S/o. Galib Sharief, Muslim, Male, aged Appellant/Accused.45 years, R/o. D.No.17-15-4, Opp. Gokul TVS Showroom, Railway Station Road, Eluru, West Godavari District.

Name and description of the:1. Kikkara Suryanarayana, S/o. Kannayya, Hindu, Male, Respondents/Complainant&aged 42 years, R/o. D.No.15-119, Hanuman Nagar, RespondentVenkatapuram panchayat, Eluru Rural, West Godavari District.

2. The State, rep., by the Public Prosecutor, Eluru, West Godavari District.

The Sentence and Law and which:In the result, the accused is found guilty for the it was imposed in the Trial Courtoffence under Section 138 and 142 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. Accordingly the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 138 and 142 of N.I. Act. Further he is directed to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/- (double the cheque amount), in default to suffer S.l. for three months. Further the entire fine amount shall be given to the complainant towards compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C and under Section 117 of N.I. Act. The accused is appraised with regard to preferring of Appeal against the orders of this Court and also for free legal aid in the Appellate Court. The remand period if any already undergone by the accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to invoke the provisions of P.O. Act.

2 Whether confirmed, modified or reversed and if modified the:

REVERSED

modification

Date of presentation:04-08-2022

Date of filing:05-08-2022

Date of notice issued:08-08-2022

Date of Bail bond:--

Date of appearance:09-09-2022

Date of hearing:06-04-2026

Date of Judgment:07-04-2026

This appeal is coming for hearing before me on 06-04-2026, on perusal of grounds of appeal and the evidence available on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri G.V. Anand Kumar, Advocate for Appellant/Accused; and of Sri K. Subba Rao (Bala), Advocate for the 1st respondent; and Additional Public Prosecutor, for the 2nd Respondent/State and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T:-

1.The Criminal present appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Accused under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the Calendar and Judgment dated 21-07-2022 passed in C.C. No.154/2018 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of I Class Court (Excise), Eluru, praying that this Court to set aside

the said Calendar and Judgment and to acquit him of the charges by allowing the appeal. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed

before Trial Court.

2.The case of the complainant, in brief, as follows:

The theory of the complainant is such that he knows the accused for more than five years. Due to that acquaintance the accused borrowed

Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 26.01.2016 for family expenses and to clear his debts. He agreed to repay the amount with interest at 24 percent per year and executed a promissory note on the same day. Later when the complainant demanded payment the accused issued cheque No. 087146 3

dated 28.03.2017 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Eluru Branch,

towards part payment of the debt. The complainant presented the cheque through his bank on 30.03.2017. The cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement funds insufficient. On the request of the accused the complainant again presented the cheque on 20.05.2017 through State Bank of

India, R.R. Peta, Eluru. Again the cheque was dishonoured on 22.05.2017 with the same endorsement funds insufficient. Thereafter the complainant issued a legal notice dated 01.06.2017 demanding payment of the cheque amount within the prescribed time. The notice was returned on 02.06.2017 with the endorsement addressee refused to receive. The accused neither replied nor paid the amount. Therefore the complainant filed this case under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the Complain.

3.Before the Trial Court, The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and the first attestor as PW.2. Exs.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the complainant. After completion of the complainant evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the complainant. He denied the same and stated that he would adduce defence evidence. He examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1. He did not file any written statement at the time of his examination.

4.In the Calendar and Judgment dated 21-07-2022 passed in C.C.

No.154/2018 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court (Excise), Eluru, wherein the Accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and 4 was consequently convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of

Rs.4,00,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months; further, the entire fine amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.

5.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the Appellant/Accused has preferred the present appeal with following grounds:-

1. The Judgment of the Trial Court is contrary to law weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the case of the appellant/accused.

3. The Trial Court has not properly considered the legal proposition relied by the appellant/accused.

4. The Trial Court ought to have seen that the appellant have discharged the burden successfully that the Ex.P.1 does not supported by consideration.

5. The Trial Court ought to have seen that in the cross examination of

P.W.2, P.W.2 admitted that he does not know the age of the other attestor and also the scribe and he cannot identify them that itself clearly indicates the presence of P.W.2 is highly doubtful at the time of alleged transaction.

6. The Trial Court ought to have seen that the complainant failed to prove the passing of consideration, when appellant/accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 118 of N.I. Act.

7. The Trial Court ought to have seen that it is the case of the complainant that he is doing lemon business, but he is not filing Income tax returns.

The Trial Court ought to have seen that non filling of the income tax returns or any bank statements is fatal to the case of prosecution.

5

8. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the cross examination made by the appellant.

9. The Trial Court ought to have seen that the burden is on the complainant that he is having financial capacity, when the accused is disputing the complainant is not having financial capacity to prove the legal enforceable debt.

10. The Trial Court ought to have seen that the failure to disclose of the amount in question in income tax returns and other books of the complainant (when the complainant is alleging that he is doing lemon business) is sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of

N.I. Act and the complainant failed to prove the legal enforceable debt.

11. The Trial Court ought to have seen that the evidence of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 are inconsistent with one and another with regarding to the alleged transaction under Ex.P.1.

12. The Trial Court ought to have seen that it is for the complainant to prove the circumstances under which the cheque in question was given in favour of the complainant.

13. The Trial Court ought to have seen that the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint how the complainant got acquaintance with the accused, when the name of the Bunk which the accused is having is not aware by the complainant.

14. The Trial Court ought to have seen that the complainant failed to prove the legally enforceable debt and also the ingrediance of under Section 138 of N.1.Act.

For these grounds, the appellant prays this Court to set aside the

Calendar and Judgment dated 21-07-2022 in C.C. No.154/2018 on the file of

Special Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class (Excise), Eluru, and acquit the appellant for the alleged offence under Section 138 (A) of N.I. Act by allowing the Criminal Appeal.

6

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now, the point to determination is whether the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellant/Accused in the Calendar and Judgment dated 21-07-2022 in C.C. No.154/2018 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court (Excise), Eluru, are sustainable under law and on facts, and whether the same are liable to be set aside by acquitting the

Appellant/Accused of the charges?

Point :—

8.The theory of the complainant is that he has known the accused for more than five years. Due to that acquaintance the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from him on 26.01.2016 for family expenses and for clearing his debts. On the same day the accused agreed to repay the amount with interest at 24 percent per annum and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant. Later when the complainant demanded repayment the accused issued cheque No. 087146 dated 28.03.2017 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Eluru Branch, towards part payment of the debt. The complainant presented the said cheque through his bank on 30.03.2017 but it was returned unpaid with the endorsement funds insufficient. At the request of the accused the complainant again presented the cheque on 20.05.2017 through State Bank of India, R.R. Peta, Eluru, and once again it was dishonoured on 22.05.2017 with the same endorsement funds insufficient.

Thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 01.06.2017 demanding payment of the cheque amount within the prescribed time. The said notice was returned on 02.06.2017 with the endorsement addressee refused to receive. As the accused neither sent any reply nor paid the amount the complainant filed the present complaint under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

7

9.In this case, the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court (Excise),

Eluru, wherein the Accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under

Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was consequently convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of

Rs.4,00,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months; further, the entire fine amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.

10.During the pendency of the criminal appeal both parties entered into a compromise and reported the same before this Court and Joint Memo is filed showing their compromise out of the Court. In view of the said compromise and having regard to the nature of the offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act this Court is satisfied that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Therefore the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in the Calendar and Judgment dated 21-07- 2022 in C.C. No.154 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I

Class Court Excise, Eluru, are hereby set aside. Consequently the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. The sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and the fine of Rs.4,00,000/- with default sentence and the direction to pay the said amount as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. must stand cancelled.

11.In the result, Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in the Calendar and Judgment dated 21-07- 2022 in C.C. No.154 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I

Class Court Excise, Eluru, are hereby set aside. The sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and the fine of Rs.4,00,000/- with default sentence and the direction to pay the said amount as compensation to the 8 complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. shall stand cancelled.

Consequently, accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Y. Srinivasa Rao,

VII Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral and documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- Y. Srinivasa Rao,

VII A.D.S.J.,

W.G., Eluru.

Copy to:

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise) - Cum - IV Additional Junior

Civil Judge Court, Eluru. (with Lower Court record).

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT – CUM – VII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

PRESENT:

DR. Y. SRINIVASA RAO,

VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI,

ELURU.

Tuesday, this the 21st day of April, 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 237/2023.

From what Court the appeal is: II Addl. Junior Civil Judge's Court - Cum- II Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

No. of the case in that Court: C.C.No.83/2019

No. of the Criminal Appeal: Criminal Appeal No.237/2023

Name and Description of theVadivela Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Apparao, Hindu, male, Appellant/Accused.aged 54 years, D.No.20C-11-59, 41st Division, Tumararada Vari Street, Eluru, West Godavari District.

Name and description of the: 1. Boddedi Musili Venkatarao, S/o. Jaggarao, Hindu, Respondents/Complainant &male, aged 53 years, D.No.16A-1-164/A, Mavayya RespondentGari Thota, 1st Division, Tangellamudi, Eluru West Godavari District.

2. The State, rep., by the Public Prosecutor, Eluru, West Godavari District.

The Sentence and Law and:In the result, the soleAccused is found guilty which it was imposed in thefor the offence under Section 138 and 142 of the Trial CourtNegotiable Instrument Act, 1881, and accordingly, he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year, and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 3 months, for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable instruments Act, 1881, for Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the accused had not undergone any remand period.

2 Whether confirmed, modified or reversed and if modified the:

REVERSED

modification

Date of presentation: 21-08-2023

Date of filing: 04-09-2023

Date of notice issued: 05-09-2023

Date of Bail bond: --

Date of appearance: 10-10-2023

Date of hearing: 20-04-2026

Date of Judgment: 21-04-2026

This appeal is coming for hearing before me on 20-04-2026, on perusal of grounds of appeal and the evidence available on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri T. Ganga Raju, Advocate for Appellant/Accused; and the 1st respondent is In-person; and Additional Public Prosecutor, for the 2nd Respondent/State and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T:-

1.The Criminal present appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Accused under Section 374 of Cr.P.C against the Calendar and judgment, dated 24.07.2023 in C.C. No. 83/2019 passed by the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge's

Court -Cum- II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, which convicted him under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, praying that this Court to set aside the said Calendar and Judgment and to acquit him of the charges by allowing the appeal. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed before Trial Court.

2.The case of the Complainant, in brief, as infra:

The Complainant filed the above case alleging that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant pleads that the accused borrowed 3 Rs.1,50,000/- on 10.01.2018 for the purpose of his family needs and to clear debts. The accused agreed to repay with compound interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant.

After repeated demands for repayment the accused issued cheque number 000004 for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 05.12.2018 as part payment of the promissory note. The cheque was presented for collection at Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Eluru, and it was returned with an endorsement of "funds insufficient". After receipt of the cheque return memo the complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.12.2018 but the accused did not comply. The complainant alleges that the accused issued the invalid cheque which amounts to offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the complaint.

3.On perusal of the material on record the case was taken on file by Trial

Court for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. After receipt of summons the accused appeared before

Trial Court through his counsel. Copies of the case documents were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The accused was later examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegations in the complaint were explained to him. The accused denied the allegations and claimed to be tried.

4.Before Trial Court, the complainant was examined as PW.1 and the scribe of the promissory note was examined as PW.2 and Exhibits Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.5 were marked. After closure of the complainant evidence, the accused was examined as DW.1 under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material was put to him and he denied the same and stated that he would adduce defence evidence, however, the accused did not adduce any documentary evidence before the Court.

4

5.On merits the Trial Court convicted the accused and this present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the Calendar and judgment, dated dated 24.07.2023 in C.C. No. 83/2019 passed by the II Addl.

Junior Civil Judge's Court -Cum- II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Eluru, which convicted him under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C.

to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for three months. Accused is order to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. (in default, simple imprisonment for three months), and consequently, acquit the

Appellant/Accused of the said offence under Section 138 and 142 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

6.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the Appellant/Accused preferred to this criminal appeal with following grounds:—

1. The calendar and judgment of the Trail Court are contrary to law, weight of Evidence and Probabilities of the case.

2. The Trail Court ought to have dismissed the complaint on the grounds that there is no legal enforcement debt.

3. The Trail Court wrongly came to conclusion by applying general clause

Act under Section-27.

4. The Trail Court wrongly imposed a sentence and fine on the appellant/convicted/accused.

5. The Trail Court ought to have considered that the signature on Ex.P2 is not genuine and does not belong to the petitioner/accused, but the respondent/complainant did not take Section 45 of the Evidence Act.

6. The Trail Court ought to have considered that Ex.P5 legal notice was not received by the appellant/accused.

5

7. The Trail Court ought to have considered the endorsement on the

Ex.P.5, that the accused did not receive the legal notice. It is clearly shows that the address mentioned on Ex.P5 is not correct.

8. The Trail Court forgot about the basic principles of General Clauses Act that the issuance of legal notice is not sufficient. In the present case, there is no postal receipt filed by the complainant and also the main ingredients of under Section 138 (b) Negotiable instrument Act. If the appellant/accused received legal notice by acknowledging the signature over the cheque, but here in this case, there is no acknowledgment filed by the complainant. Hence, the alleged version of the respondent/ complainant with regard to legal notice and postal receipt is utterly false and baseless.

9. The Trail Court ought to have dismissed the complaint on the ground of non-compliance with the main ingredients of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, specifically the lack of acknowledgment and postal receipt.

10. The Trail Court ought to have dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is no genunity of Ex.P.5 legal notice, especially there is no receipt issued by the postal department and no return acknowledgment from the postal department, hence the present complaint is not maintainable under law, 2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 299 (SC).

11. It is humbly submitted that the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the complaint on the ground under Section 138 (b) of Negotiable

Instruments Act, the rebuttable presumptions under Section 139 and non compliance of mandatory provision under Section 138 (b), i.e., both the demand and receipt of legal notice.

For these grounds that the appellant prays this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by II Addl. Judicial 1st Class Magistrate,

Eluru, West Godavari District, in C.C.No.83/2019, dt.24-07-2023, and allow the appeal.

6

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now, the point to determination is whether the conviction and sentence imposed against the Appellant/Accused in the Calendar and Judgment dated 24.07.2023 in C.C. No. 83/2019 passed by the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge's

Court -Cum- II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, is liable to be set aside as prayed for?

Point :—

9.The complainant/respondent filed private complaint vide C.C.

No.83/2019 against appellant/accused for the offence under Section 138 of

N.I. Act, 1881, and the learned II Addl. Junior Civil Judge's Court -Cum- II

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, under Section 255(2) of

Cr.P.C. and appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 3 months, for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable instruments Act, 1881, for Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the accused had not undergone any remand period.

10.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed against appellant/accused, this present criminal appeal is filed. During the pendency of this criminal appeal, the parties compromised out of the Court and the appellant/accused and complainant/respondent filed Joint Memo on 20.04.2026 submitting that this was was settled before elders and the appellant paid Rs.40,000/- to the complainant/respondent on 20.04.2026 and the complainant/respondent received that amount and security amount of

Rs.20,000/- deposited by the appellant/accused before the Trial Court shall be 7 given to the complainant/respondent in addition to that amount of Rs.40,000/- given to the complainant/respondent by the accused on 20.04.2026. It is thus the matter is compromised for the total amount Rs.40,000/- + Rs.20,000/- =

Rs.60,000/- and therefore, it is a fit case to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused in C.C. No.83/2019 on the file of II Addl. Junior Civil Judge's Court -Cum- II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Eluru. I find the point accordingly.

11.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in the Calendar and Judgment dated 24.07.2023 passed by the learned II Addl. Junior Civil Judge's Court -Cum- II

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, in C.C. No. 83/2019 is hereby set aside. Consequentially, accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court is directed to return the deposited amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant/respondent within two (2) months from the date of this Judgment as the appellant/accused and complainant/respondent compromised during the pendency of this appeal. The bonds and bail bonds of accused, if any shall stand cancelled, after lapse of six months under Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on this the 21 st day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Y. Srinivasa Rao,

VII Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral and documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- Y. Srinivasa Rao,

VII A.D.S.J.,

W.G., Eluru.

Copy to:

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge's Court -Cum- II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru. (with Trial Court record).

8