MANDAPALLI NIRMALATHA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision case arises out of the judgment dated 20.10.2004 in Crl.A.No. 231 of 2001 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner-accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,000/-from one Addanki Venkata RAthnam of Chirala on 11.05.1995 and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the amount borrowed together with interest @ 36% per annum. It is said that in spite of the repeated demands by the said Venakta Rathnam, the revision petitioner did not pay the amount and as Mr.Venkata Rathnam was in need of money, he transferred the promissory note in favour of the second respondent-complainant on 02.02.1998 for an amount of Rs. 12,000/-. Subsequent to the said transfer, on demand made by the second respondent-complainant to pay the amount due under the transferred promissory note, the revision petitioner issued cheque dated 25.02.1998 for an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant presented the cheque for collection at Andhra Bank, Kanigiri on 02.07.1998 which was sent to Andhra Bank, Chirala for collection and was returned with memo on 04.09.1998 stating that the account of the revision petitioner was closed. Subsequently, the complainant issued registered notice on 16.09.1998 demanding the revision petitioner-accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days. The revision petitioner evaded to receive the said notice and ultimately received the same on 08.10.1996 and got issued a reply to the said notice through her advocate on 17.10.1998. Subsequently, the second respondent-complainant filed complaint against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 12.11.1998. The revision petitioner admitted her signatures on Ex:P-9 promissory note and Ex.P-1 cheque, but contended that Batchu Anjaneyulu who is a relative of the complainant was running a chit in which the revision petitioner was a member and the said Anjaneyulu obtained two blank cheques and Ex.P-9 promissory note in connection with the said chit transaction and basing on the said documents, the complainant filed the present complaint to harass her.

(3.) Before the trial Court, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P10 were marked on behalf of the complainant and DW-1 was examined and Ex.D-1 was marked on behalf of the accused/revision petitioner.