IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3178 of 2018 Date:23.01.2026 Between:

Shaik Dada Kalandar Vali …Petitioner/Appellant/Accused And Kondur Alivelamma W/o.Madhusudhan Shetty, and another ... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.10.2018 passed in Crl.A. No.78 of 2018 by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge at Nagar Kurnool, whereby the appeal is dismissed.

2. Heard Sri S.M. Rafee, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Venkataiah Ediga, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2-State.

3. The case of the complainant before the trial court is that the complainant and the petitioner-accused are acquainted with each other and that the accused has approached the complainant and borrowed an amount of Rs.17.00 lakhs for his business purpose by mortgaging his immovable property and that, to avoid the stamp duty on the mortgage deed, it was registered for Rs.4,76,000/- and for the remaining amount of Rs.12,24,000/- the accused has issued four cheques bearing Nos.650414, dated 18.09.2009, 650415, dated 31.05.2010, 650416, dated 18.06.2010 for Rs.3.00 lakhs each and cheque No.650417 dated 18.12.2010 for Rs.3,24,000/-. The said details are narrated in an agreement dated 17.06.2009 executed by the accused. It is the case of the complainant that the first cheque bearing No.650414 for an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs and the interest over the total principle amount up to August, 2009 was realized and thereafter the accused did not pay the amount. The cheque bearing No.650415, dated 31.05.2010 was deposited by the complainant and the same was returned by the bank for the reason ‘funds insufficient’. The cheque return memo was issued on 24.06.2010 and 05.06.2010. Thus, the complainant has issued legal notice dated 22.07.2010 and the same was returned unserved on the accused and the accused had not paid the cheque amount. Therefore, the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act has been filed by the complainant. The trial court, after a full-fledged trial, has convicted the accused sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs.3.00 lakhs i.e. the cheque amount as compensation and on payment of Rs.3.00 lakhs by the accused, the same shall be paid to the complainant under Section 357 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has preferred an appeal vide Crl.A. No.78 of 2018 and the appellate court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction delivered by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the appellate court, the present revision case is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are many discrepancies in the cheque put forth by the complainant and that Ex.P1 is signed in Telugu, but all the contents are filled in English, which means to say that the contents are filled subsequently by the complainant. He further submitted that the accused has taken loan of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the husband of the complainant and has repaid the same. But, misusing the cheque given by him, the present case has been filed by the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant is a housewife and a housewife lending an amount of Rs.17.00 lakhs is highly improbable. He further submitted that he issued a cheque only for Rs.3.00 lakhs but not for Rs.17.00 lakhs.

The registered mortgage deed under Ex.D1 also does not mention the amount of Rs.17.00 lakhs, and therefore issuance of cheques for Rs.17.00 lakhs would not arise. If Ex.P5 i.e. agreement executed by the accused is considered, it would be proved that there is no legally enforceable debt to be paid by the revision petitioner. If the executant of the agreement under Ex.P5 has denied its very execution, then it was the duty of the complainant to examin