IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.228 of 2021 DATE: 06.04.2026 BETWEEN:

Dadi Dharmendar Reddy …..petitioner And The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another …..Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 16.03.2021 passed in Crl.A.No.292 of 2015 by the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a private complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the accused had borrowed a certain amount from him and, in discharge of the said legally enforceable debt, issued a cheque in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment, it was returned dishonoured by the bank due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory legal notice demanding payment of the cheque amount, but the accused failed to comply with the demand within the stipulated period. Hence, the complainant initiated criminal proceedings against the accused. After full-fledged trial, the learned II Special Magistrate, Malkajgiri, by judgment dated 07.04.2015 in C.C.No.58 of 2013, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.292 of 2015 before the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, and the said appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 16.03.2021 confirming the conviction and sentence, which is now challenged in the present Criminal Revision Case.

3. Heard Sri M. Rathan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State and Sri S. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court are arbitrary and passed without proper application of judicial mind and that both the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner by merely relying on the presumption under law without properly appreciating the material available on record which, according to him, sufficiently rebutted the said presumption. He further submitted that there was no legally enforceable debt of Rs.22,00,000/- as alleged by the complainant and that the evidence on record is contradictory regarding the alleged liability. He contended that the cheque in question was obtained by the complainant under coercion by initiating criminal proceedings through the police and therefore it cannot be treated as a cheque issued towards a legally enforceable debt. He further contended that the alleged transaction itself is invalid and opposed to law and public policy, and that the Courts below failed to properly consider these aspects. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the orders of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that both the trial Court and the appellate Court have rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. He contended that the complainant had clearly established that the accused issued the cheque towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt and that the same was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. He further submitted that the statutory notice was duly issued and the accused failed to comply with the demand, thereby attracting the offence under Section 138 of the Act. He further contended that the accused failed to rebut the statutory pre