IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.11 OF 2019 DATE: 23-01-2026 Between:

Thimmapagari N. Srinivasulu Reddy … Appellant And The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad and another ... Respondents

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-complainant aggrieved by the judgment, dated 02.11.2018, rendered in C.C.No.185 of 2016 by the learned XIV Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad, whereby, respondent No.2-accused was found not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘N.I. Act’) and accordingly, he was acquitted.

2. Heard Sri Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G. Ravi Chandran, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant-complainant could prove all the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against respondent No.2-accused and that respondent No.2-accused has not discharged his burden of rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. He further submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and that the trial Court has committed a grave error by holding that there was no legally enforceable debt. He further submitted that the appellant could prove before the trial Court through his evidence that the disputed cheque was issued by respondent No.2-accused for clearing the debt due to him. He, therefore, prayed to reappreciate the evidence, set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and convict respondent No.2-accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, otherwise the appellant-

complainant would be put to huge loss of Rs.23,00,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there is no error committed by the trial Court and that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has acquitted respondent No.2-accused, as the appellant could not prove his case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the trial Court. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that there was any debt taken by respondent No.2-accused from the appellant-complainant. Therefore, in the absence of any legally enforceable debt, the ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I. Act do not get attracted against respondent No.2. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Appeal by confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 5. Perused the record.

6. Since the offence alleged is under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the same is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

“138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account:

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount, of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the