Final Order 3

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: MHMM180075432018 Received On : 05.07.2018
Registered on : 05.07.2018
Decided on : 17.09.2025
Duration : 07 Y 02 M 12 D
Part ‘A’
(Para 44(i) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS,
58TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
(Presided over by : Mahesh Prabhakar Saraf)
Summons Case No. 1194/SS/2018
(CNR :MHMM180075432018)
JUDGMENT Exh.64
(Delivered on 17th day of September, 2025)
Prosecution/
Complainant : M/s. Gharda Chemicals Ltd.,
having its registered office at
Gharda House, Hill Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai
through its authorized officer
Mr. Rakesh Uttam Desai, aged Age :41 years.
Represented by : Advocate Ramakant Yadav, Ms. Adiba Khan for
RHY Juris Law Associates.
Accused : Mr. Kamireddy Murali
Proprietor of M/s. Murali Rythu Depot
Age : 51 years, Occ. Business,
having office at Room No.3, New Bus Stand,
Tada SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh-
524401 and
R/o. Graddagunta Village Tada Mandal, Sprs
Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh-524121.
Represented by :
Advocate Rahulkumar Dubey, Jagdish S. Singh,
Dinesh S. Nishad.
-- 1 of 14 --
… 2 .... Summons Case No. 1194/SS/2018
Judgment Exh.64
Part ‘B’
(Para 44(ii) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
Date of Offence : 29-06-2018
Date of filing complaint : 05-07-2018
Date of Registration of Complaint : 05-07-2018
Date of Recording Plea : 12-07-2022
Date of Commencement of evidence : 05-07-2018
Date on which Judgment is Reserved : 17-09-2025
Date of the Judgment : 17-09-2025
Date of sentencing order, if any : 17-09-2025
Accused Details
Rank
of
the
Accu
sed
Name of
Accused
Dat
e of
Arr
est
Date
of
Releas
ed on
bail
Offence
charged
with
Final
order
Sentence Peri
od
of
det
enti
on
und
erg
one
1. Mr.
Kamireddy
Murali
- 12.07
.2022
U/s.
138 of
the
N.I.Act,
1881
Convicted Accused is held
guilty for the o/
p/u/sec.138 of
N.I.Act. and
sentenced to
undergo S.I. for
03 months and
shall pay
compensation of
Rs.22,32,000/-
alongwith
interest @ 6%
p.a.from
23.04.2018 till
realization to
-
-- 2 of 14 --
… 3 .... Summons Case No. 1194/SS/2018
Judgment Exh.64
the complainant
, Id. of payment
of compensation
accused shall
suffer further
S.I. for 01(one)
month.
Part C
(Para 44(iii) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
List of Prosecution/Defence/Court Witnesses
A) Prosecution/Complainant’s Witnesses -
CW NAME Nature of
Evidence
Exhibits
01 Mr. Rakesh Uttam Desai Oral 06
B) Defence Witnesses -
DW NAME Nature of
Evidence
Exhibits
01 - -
C) Court Witnesses, if any -
CW NAME Nature of
Evidence
Exhibits
01 - - -
List of Prosecution/Defence/Court Exhibits
A) Prosecution/Complainant -
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
1. Exhibit – 15/CW01 Certified True Copy of
Minutes Board Resolution
2. Exhibit – 16/CW01 Cheque bearing
No.873843
-- 3 of 14 --
… 4 .... Summons Case No. 1194/SS/2018
Judgment Exh.64
3. Exhibit – 17/CW01 Cheque returned memo
4. Exhibit - 18/CW01 Office copy of Demand
Notice dated 23.05.2018
7. Exhibit – 19 and 20/CW01 Two Postal receipts
8. Exhibit – 21/CW01 Returned Envelop
9. Exhibit – 30/CW01 Photo Copy of letter dated
05.02.2022 issued by the
accused.
10. Exhibit – 31 to 62/CW01
Collectively.
Original copy of Tax
Invoices, Way Bills and
Challans
B) Defence -
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
1. Exhibit - /DW01 -
C) Court Exhibits -
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
1. Exhibit - /CW01 -
D) Material Object -
Sr. No. Material Object Number Description
1. - -
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 17th September, 2025)
Accused is prosecuted for the offence punishable under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
2. Complainant’s case in nut shell is as follows:
That complainant is authorized officer deputed on behalf
of complainant company to represent it. Accused is proprietor of M/s.
-- 4 of 14 --
… 5 .... Summons Case No. 1194/SS/2018
Judgment Exh.64
Murali Rythu Depot and signatory to the cheque. Complainant
company is engaged in manufacturing and selling Agro Chemical
products. It has supplied various Agro Chemical material to the accused
time to time. Accordingly, invoices were due for payment within 90
days from the date of invoices. Accused failed to make payment within
stipulated period. As such he indebted to the complainant a total sum
of Rs.22,32,577.94. To discharge said liability, accused issued subject
cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, Tada AP-524401 branch in which he
had maintained his bank account. On depositing said cheque returned
unpaid to the complainant vide banker memo dated 26.04.2018 for the
reason ‘Account Closed’ by the accused. Thereon, accused was called
upon to make payment vide demand notice dated 23.05.2018 sent by
Registered post. Accused duly received the Registered Post Envelop
containing demand notice on 09.06.2018. However, the postal envelop
returned back with remarks ‘Addressee Continue Absent’ on
14.06.2018. Accused failed to make payment. Hence, this complaint.
3. My Ld. Predecessor has taken cognizance of the complaint
and issued process against the accused under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. On appearance of the accused, particulars of offence
were stated to him in vernacular to which the accused pleaded not
guilty vide Plea Exh.14 on 12.07.2022 and claimed to be tried. The
case was tried as summons trial.
4. The accused was given more than sufficient opportunity to
exercise his right of cross examination as well as giving explanation to
the incriminating substance found in the evidence of the complainant
against him but he failed to exercise both rights by remaining absent.
Bail bonds of the accused was forfeited vide order dated 02.12.2023.
-- 5 of 14 --
… 6 .... Summons Case No. 1194/SS/2018
Judgment Exh.64
No cross order came to be passed on 12.12.2024. Thereafter, statement
of accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure could not
be recorded as accused remained absent. The same was dispensed with
vide order dated 18.06.2025 below Exh.01.
5. Heard, advocate Ramakant Yadav, Ms. Adiba Khan for RHY
Juris Law Associates representing for the complainant. Accused and his
advocate Rahulkumar Dubey etc. are absent.
6. Following points arise for my determination to which I
have recorded my findings with reasons thereto as follows-
Sr.No. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether it is proved that the accused has
drawn subject cheque bearing No.873843 for
Rs.22,32,000/- dated 23.04.2018 on the
account of accused maintained with Syndicate
Bank, TADA 524401 Andhra Pradesh Branch,
in favour of the complainant in discharge of
the legal debt or liability towards the
outstanding amount of invoices?
: Yes.
2. Whether it is proved that the cheque was
dishonored for the reason ‘Account Closed’
and returned unpaid to the complainant?
: Yes.
3. Whether it is proved that the accused has
received demand notice dated 23.05.2018,
issued u/sec.138(b) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act sent by the complainant
making demand of payment of said cheque
amount in writing within one month of
receipt of information from the bank
regarding dishonor of cheque?
: Yes.
4. Whether it is proved that despite service of
demand notice, the accused failed to pay the
cheque amount within statutory period of 15
days after receiving notice and thereby
: Yes.
-- 6 of 14 --
… 7 .... Summons Case No. 1194/SS/2018
Judgment Exh.64
committed an offence punishable under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act?
5. What order? : Accused is
convicted.
REASONS
7. Complainant company has examined its Authorized
Representative CW-01 Rakesh Uttam Desai at Exh.6 whose evidence
has gone unchallenged on behalf of the accused. Besides oral evidence
complainant has relied upon the photo copy of Resolution passed in the
Meeting of Board of Directors on 10.06.2014 at Exh.15, subject cheque
at Exh.16, cheque dishonor memo dated Exh.17, copy of Demand
Notice at Exh.18, photo copy of letter dated 05.02.2022 issued by the
accused admitting the outstanding balance at Exh.30, various Invoices
alongwith E-Way Bills and Delivery Challans etc.
8. Accused was given more than sufficient opportunity to
exercise his right of putting defence. However, record speaks for the
negligent and dilatory approach on the part of the accused. Therefore,
in view of no defence on the part of the accused, only question remains
for consideration whether accused has issued subject cheque in
discharge of his legal liability to make the payment of outstanding
balance towards supply of Agro Chemicals by the complainant
company. Quality, quantity and delivery of goods in question is not
disputed by the accused.
AS TO POINT NO.1:-
9. Complainant’s oral evidence is replica of the averments
made in the complaint. It is corroborated by the documentary evidence
-- 7 of 14 --
… 8 .... Summons Case No. 1194/SS/2018
Judgment Exh.64
of photo copy of Acknowledgment of Liability Letter Exh.30, Tax
Invoices, Lorry Receipts, E-Way Bills collectively produced at Exh.31 to
62. The oral evidence of CW-01 indicates the sale transaction of Agro
Chemical Commodity to the accused. The document of Exh.30 that is
letter dated 05.02.2022 sent by the accused to the complainant clearly
speaks about admitting outstanding amount of Rs.22,21,177.49.
Therefore, there is reason to believe that accused has issued subject
cheque in discharge of said legal liability.
10. The signature of accused on his plea Exh.14 is similar and
identical to the signature executed on document of Exh.30 and subject
cheque Exh.16. The dishonor memo shows that said cheque was
dishonored for the reason, ‘Account Closed’ by the accused. There is
sufficient evidence to suggest due service of statutory notice under
section 138(b) upon the accused by Registered Post.
11. Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1988 draws a
legal presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque, which states,
“
It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of
a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in section 138,
for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.”
12. In view of ratio laid down in the case of 'Bir Singh
V/s.Mukesh Kumar' (2019) 4 SCC 197, Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that,
“the presumption u/sec.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is
in favour of the complainant. It is the statutory presumption. The
burden of rebuttal is on the accused. If the ingredients are proved, the
Court is bound to draw the presumption in favour of the complainant”.
-- 8 of 14 --
… 9 .... Summons Case No. 1194/SS/2018
Judgment Exh.64
13. In the case of Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh, (2023)10 SCC
148, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, “
Once the presumption
arises under section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the court
ought to have proceeded on the premise that cheque was indeed issued
in discharge of a debt or liability. The entire focus would then
necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the
activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting evidential
burden on the accused. In such circumstances, the nature of inquiry
would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of
rebutting the presumption. If he fails to do so, the court can straight
way proceed to convict the accused subject to satisfaction of other
ingredients of section 138 of the N.I. Act. However, if the court finds
that the evidential burden placed on the accused has been discharged,
complainant would have been expected to prove the said fact
independently and without taking aid of the presumption. ”
14. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of
Judgments states that once issuance of cheque is proved, the court has
to consider and follow the presumption of law under section 139 of the
Act in favour of complainant unless the same is rebutted by the
accused. Thereby, the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut the
presumption. In the case in hand, the initial burden to attract the
presumption which favors the complainant that the cheque was issued
in discharge of legal debt or other liability is validly discharged by the
complainant. The accused has failed to rebut said presumption.
15. The legal obligation to pay said outstanding amount of sale
of Agro Chemical Commodity etc. remains on accused. Accused has
admitted his liability in writing by virtue of Acknowledgment of
-- 9 of 14 --
… 10 .... Summons Case No. 1194/SS/2018
Judgment Exh.64
Liability Letter Exh.30. A cheque is not mere piece of paper. In absence
of any defence, there is reason to believe that the cheque was issued for
making payment of outstanding amount of the sale transaction of Agro
Chemicals sold and supplied by the complainant. Therefore, in view of
presumption under section 139 coupled with proof of existence of legal
liability towards accused, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO.2 :
16. The complainant has produced cheque return memo
produced at Exh.17. It shows reason for dishonor of the cheque,
‘Accused Closed’ by the accused. The reason of dishonor of cheque is
not disputed. Closing account after issuing cheque falls within the
ambit of scope of criminal liability attributed under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Therefore, in view of presumption
under section 146 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, I answer the point
No.2 in the affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO.3 :
17. Accused has not disputed receiving demand notice or
knowledge of demand made by the complainant after dishonor of the
cheque. The letter dated 05.02.2022 Exh.30 indicates knowledge of
demand and acknowledgment of liability by the accused. A legal and
valid demand is made as contemplated under section 138(b) of the
Negotiable Instrument Act. Section 27 of General Clauses Act, suggest
presumption as to service of notice through Registered Post on correct
address. In absence of any contrary evidence on the side of accused in
defence, I answer point No.3 in the affirmative.
-- 10 of 14 --
… 11 .... Summons Case No. 1194/SS/2018
Judgment Exh.64
AS TO POINT NOS.4 AND 5 :
18. Drawer of a cheque is deemed to have committed the
offence of cheque dishonor, if the following ingredients are fulfilled:
(i) A cheque is drawn for the payment of any amount of money
to another person;
(ii) The cheque is drawn for the discharge of the ‘whole or part’
of any debt or other liability, ‘Debt or other liability’ means
legally enforceable debt or other liability; and
(iii) The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid because of
insufficient funds or any other reason.
However, unless the stipulations in the proviso are fulfilled the offence
is not deemed to be committed. The conditions in the proviso are as
follows:
(i) The cheque must be presented in the bank within six months
from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of
its validity;
(ii) The holder of the cheque must make a demand for the
payment of the ‘said amount of money’ by giving a notice in
writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days from
the receipt of the notice from the bank that the cheque was
returned dishonored, and
(iii) The drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the
‘said amount of money’ within fifteen days from the receipt of
the notice.
19. Complainant has satisfactorily proved all the above
ingredients constituting an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, beyond all reasonable doubt. Complaint is filed within
statutory period after arising cause of action to file complaint.
Therefore, it is crystal clear that accused has committed an offence
punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
Hence, I answer point No.4 in the affirmative.
-- 11 of 14 --
… 12 .... Summons Case No. 1194/SS/2018
Judgment Exh.64
20. The act of the accused as to issuing cheque in discharge of
legal liability, its dishonor and further failure to make payment after
making legal and valid demand by the complainant constitute an
offence punishable under section 138 of The Negotiable Instrument
Act. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment. The accused is
held guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of The
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
21. Heard complainant and advocate Ms. Adiba Khan for
complainant. She prayed for awarding maximum punishment. Accused
and his advocate absent.
22. Record shows that accused has kept the matter lingering.
The complainant has right of speedy trial. The law mandates to
conclude the trial within six months from the commencement of
hearing under section 143(3) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
Considering the matter of year 2018 pending on the file of this Court,
the Judgment is delivered in absence of accused taking recourse to
section 353(6) of Code of Criminal Procedure and section 392(6) of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
23. The main object of the Act is to raise faith in the
transactions done by way of negotiable instruments. The accused has
kept the trial lingering. Showing leniency will pass a wrong message in
the society. It will encourage the defrauders to use the negotiable
instruments as a protracting tool. Nobody would trust making
transaction on the basis of negotiable instruments. In fact, evidence on
record is quite clear to indicate sale transaction and issuing subject
cheque towards the total outstanding amount against various materials
supplied time to time. Considering nature of transaction, it would not
-- 12 of 14 --
… 13 .... Summons Case No. 1194/SS/2018
Judgment Exh.64
be just and proper to award compensation of double the amount of
cheque when accused has lost his business due to COVID-19 Pandemic
or for other reasons. In my opinion, awarding interest @ 6% per
annum on the principal outstanding amount from the date of issuing
cheque would make justice with the parties alongwith substantive
sentence which would act as a hanging sword. Hence, I pass following
order.
ORDER
1. Accused Kamireddy Murali, Proprietor of M/s. Murali Rythu
Depot, R/o. Graddagunta Village Tada Mandal, Sprs Nellore
District, Andhra Pradesh-524121, is held guilty vide section
255(2) r/w. 353(6) of The Criminal Procedure Code and
Section 278(2) r/w.392(6) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for the offence punishable under section 138 of
the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for 03 (three) months.
2. Accused shall pay compensation of Rs.22,32,000/- (Rupees
Twenty two Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand only), alongwith
interest @ 6% per annum from 23.04.2018 till realization to the
complainant under section 357(3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure and under section 395(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in default of payment of compensation
accused shall suffer further simple imprisonment for 01(one)
month.
3. Bail Bonds of accused already forfeited and stands cancelled.
4. Issue warrant for arrest under section 418(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure and under section 458(2) of the Bhartiya
-- 13 of 14 --
… 14 .... Summons Case No. 1194/SS/2018
Judgment Exh.64
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against accused for the
purpose of forwarding him to the jail.
5. The copy of Judgment be supplied to the accused free of cost as
and when arrested and brought before this Court.
(Judgment is dictated and pronounced in the open Court).
( M. P. Saraf )
Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
Date : 17.09.2025. 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code: MH01362
CERTIFICATE
I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file Judgment are same, word to word as per
the original Judgment.
Name of Stenographer : Mrs.Aditi Ravikiran Dalvi
Court : Judicial Magistrate(First Class), 58th Court,
Bandra, Mumbai.
Dictated in open court on : 17.09.2025.
Transcribed and Typed on : 17.09.2025.
Judgment printed and Signed on : 17.09.2025.
Judgment Uploaded on : 18.09.2025.
-- 14 of 14 --