THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.4506 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order in Crl.R.P.No.5 of 2007 dated 21.7.2008 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder order passed by the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.115 of 2006 dated 28.12.2006 holding the petitioner/accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was confirmed. 2. Whereas, the petitioner is the Accused and the first respondent is the complainant in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the calendar case. 3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows: The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant on 10.3.2003 by executing a demand promissory note in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and in partial discharge of the debt, she also issued a cheque bearing No.041642 for Rs.20,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Dwarakanagar Branch, Visakhapatnam. When the complainant presented the said cheque through his banker namely Andhra Bank, Dabagardens branch on 5.8.2005, the cheque was dishonoured with endorsement “account closed” and thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice on 2.9.2005 demanding the accused to pay the cheque amount, which was returned unserved. 4. The accused denied the allegations. 5. For the complainant before the trial Court, he got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and on behalf of the accused, no documents were marked. When examined with reference to incriminating evidence, she denied the same to be true and correct. On the consideration of the matter, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted her under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced her to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. It is contended on behalf of the accused that in fact as contended before the Courts below a blank cheque was issued by the accused which was misused by the complainant to gain unlawfully and no notice was served upon her to pay the amount and it is observed by both the Courts below that admittedly the cheque was signed by the accused and hence it was presumed that she issued the cheque voluntarily and the complainant had to place sufficient evidence to prove his claim, but he failed to do so and further the original address of the accused was H.No.10-32-14 and on the corresponding returned postal cover marked as Ex.P5 it was noted at first as H.No.10-32-14 but 32 was rounded off and 31 was noted with a different ink which is matching with the ink used by the postman for his endorsement and the corresponding acknowledgment enclosed to Ex.P5 also shows the door number as 10-32-14 and P.W.1 deposed that he sent a cover by giving door No.10-32-14, whereas the door number was modified as 10-31-14 on the cover. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to uphold the claim of the accused. Having gone through the record, I am in agreement with the observations of both the Courts below. When admittedly the accused signed the cheque, but alleges that she signed only a blank cheque and was made use of for the purpose of the case, she has to place necessary evidence in that context, otherwise it has to be presumed to be true document, whereas in fact, she failed to discharge the presumption. I also agree with the observations of the Courts below that admittedly the door number of the accused happened to be 10-32-14 and for that address only, the envelope was sent and it was returned with endorsement “addressee was not residing there” and door No.32 therein was altered to Door No.31, which appears to be not done by the complainant and hence it is clear that it was properly addressed. When the accused did not deny the door number as 10-32-14, it must be that deliberately she did not receive it and it was got returned with endorsement “addressee was not residing there”. The fact that the door No.10-32-14 was altered to door No.10-31-14 and it contain the same ink, which was also used by the postman for making the corresponding written endorsement, it appears that the mischief was done at the instance of the accused by the postman, which is also meant that the accused got knowledge about the contents of the notice. Further, both the Courts below properly understood the matter and absolutely there is no reason to interfere with the findings and there are no merits in the petition. Ultimately, the criminal petition is dismissed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 21-10-2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.4506 of 2008 21.10.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.4506 of 2008 Date: 21ST October, 2011 Between: Smt.Dharmala Venkata Lakshmi .. Petitioner/Accused And Allam Nageswara Rao and another. .. Respondents