IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1135 OF 2016 DATE: 23-01-2026 Between:

T. Shashikala … Petitioner And A. Venkatesh, S/o. A. Pochaiah, aged about 48 years, R/o. 18-3-654/A/9/1, Hamam Bowli, Outside Lal Darwaza, Hyderabad and another ... Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-

accused aggrieved by the judgment, dated 28.03.2016, rendered in Crl.A.No.31 of 2016 by the learned Special Judge For Economic Offences-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner- accused was dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 21.12.2015, rendered in C.C.No.460 of 2013 by the learned XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in convicting the petitioner-accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’) and sentencing her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Madhusudan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

3. The case of respondent No.1-complainant is that himself and the petitioner-accused belong to the same community and are well acquainted with each other and thus, the petitioner- accused approached him for a hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- for her family necessities and he has paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner- accused with an assurance that the same shall be repaid within six months, but the petitioner-accused failed to repay the same. When respondent No.1-complainant demanded her, the petitioner-accused has issued Ex.P1-cheque bearing No.553048, dated 28.01.2013, towards discharge of the hand loan. When respondent No.1-complainant presented the same for encashment on 29.01.2013, the same was returned on 30.01.2013 by the banker for the reason of ‘Insufficient Funds’. When respondent No.1-complainant informed the same to the petitioner-accused, she has requested to present the cheque after two weeks and accordingly, respondent No.1-complainant has presented the cheque on 18.02.2013, but again the cheque was returned for the very same reason i.e., ‘Insufficient Funds’ vide Cheque Return Memo, dated 22.02.2013. Thereafter, respondent No.1-complainant has issued legal notice, dated 04.03.2013, which was served on the petitioner-accused under acknowledgment, dated 08.03.2013. In spite of receiving the legal notice, the petitioner-accused neither paid the amount nor issued any reply. Thus, respondent No.1-complainant filed the present complaint and the same was numbered as C.C.No.460 of 2013 on the file of learned XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, has convicted the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced her to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused has approached the appellate Court vide Crl.A.No.31 of 2016 and the appellate Court vide impugned judgment, dated 28.03.2016, has confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective and convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He further submitted that the petitioner has never taken any loan from respondent No.1-complainant and that the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not sustainable in the eye of law. He, therefore, prayed to set