APHC010075272009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 809 OF 2009 Between: 1. P.SUDHAKAR, S/o late Dharma Rao, D.No.4-66-1, Lawsonsbay Colony, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioner AND 1. KUCHIPUDI VENKATA SRINIVASA RAO THE STATE OF A P, S/o Rama Rao, R/o Madhurrnagar, Visakhapatnam. 2. The State of A P, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: MOTUPALLI VEERANNA ABBAI TATA,LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondents: CH SHANMUKHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents:- Counsel for the Respondents:PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: ORDER: Heard Sri Motupalli Veeranna Abbai Tata, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Ch. Shanmukha Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, and P. Somayaji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against judgment dated 13.05.2009 in Crl.A.No.114 of 2006 on the file of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby learned Appellate Court, while confirming the order of learned Magistrate finding petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, modified the sentence to some extent. Brief Facts of the Case: 3. Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant by executing a promissory note, agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a. However, said amount was not repaid despite on demand. Subsequently, on repeated demands, accused issued a cheque bearing No.228097 dated 19.09.2003 for Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of complainant, drawn on State Bank of India, Siripuram Branch, Visakhapatnam. Complainant presented the cheque through his banker for clearance, but the same was dishonoured with an endorsement “account closed”. Thereafter, complainant issued a legal notice to accused on 08.10.2003, which was returned with an endorsement “not claimed”. Finding no other alternative, complainant lodged a complaint before learned Magistrate concerned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. During trial, complainant was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On behalf of defence, no oral or documentary evidences were adduced. It appears from the impugned order of the learned Trial Court that defence counsel raised an issue that accused was an income-tax assessee and that cheque amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was not shown in his income-tax returns. Submissions of the learned Legal Aid Counsel: 4. Sri Motupalli Veeranna Abbai Tata, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been wrongly convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and that contention regarding non- disclosure of the amount in the income-tax returns has not been properly considered. Submissions of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1: 5. Sri Ch. Shanmukha Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, supports findings recorded by learned Courts below and submits that cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability and that statutory requirements under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been complied with. Submissions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor: 6. Sri P. Somayaji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, supports findings recorded by learned Courts below. Observation of this Court: 7. Cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability and was subsequently dishonoured. Complainant, being holder of the cheque, is entitled to the statutory presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act that cheque was issued to remit a legally enforceable debt or liability. Though the said presumption is rebuttable in nature, the petitioner/accused has neither adduced any evidence nor placed any material on record to rebut the statutory presumption. Complainant has substantially complied with the requirements contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Merely because the accused did not disclose receipt of the said amount in his income-tax returns, it cannot be a ground to hold that the amount was not received. Income-tax statements are required to be dealt with by the individuals by disclosing their income. The loan amount cannot be treated as income. Moreover, non-disclosure of this in the IT return is within the knowledge and option of the accused. For such non-disclosure, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. Therefore, the said contention cannot be accepted. I have further perused the evidence on record and findings recorded by learned Courts below. Learned Appellate Court was justified in confirming the conviction of petitioner. There is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment. The assistance rendered by the learned Legal Aid Counsel is appreciated. 8. Accordingly, instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. _______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date:28.09.2026 JLSR 134 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:809 of 2009 28.09.2026 JLSR