HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD *****

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3176 of 2018 Between:

Shail Dada Kalandar Vali S/o. Shaik Mahabub Saheb, Aged 70 years, R/o.D.No.6-32, Opp: Sri Sathya Sai General Hospital, Main Road, Puttaparthy, Anantapoor District.

… Petitioner And Kondur Alivelamma W/o. Madhusudhan Shetty, Age: 55 years, R/o.Nagarkurnool Village and Mandal, Wanaparthy and another … Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 23.01.2026 Submitted for approval.

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No Judgments?

2 Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No

3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA + CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3176 of 2018 % Dated 23.01.2026 Between:

# Shail Dada Kalandar Vali S/o. Shaik Mahabub Saheb, Aged 70 years, R/o.D.No.6-32, Opp: Sri Sathya Sai General Hospital, Main Road, Puttaparthy, Anantapoor District.

… Petitioner And $ Kondur Alivelamma W/o. Madhusudhan Shetty, Age: 55 years, R/o.Nagarkurnool Village and Mandal, Wanaparthy and another … Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S.M. Rafee ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri Venkatesh Ediga Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor Gist:

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

1. 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.(219 (AP)

2. (2000) 7 SCC 189

3. (2006) 6 SCC 39 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3176 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.77 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.650416, dated 18.06.2010 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 20.07.2010. Thus, the complainant has issued legal notice dated 17.08.2010, which was received by the accused and the accused has issued a reply notice and denied the transaction with dishonest intention. 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.