1 - M. P. Now C. G. State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited Head OfÏce v. 1 - Aagneya Jaiswal S/o
Case Details
AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.08.04 11:13:02 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:37776 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 930 of 2016 1 - M. P. Now C. G. State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited Head OfÏce, Jahangirbad Bhopal, And Unit Titled Cattle Feed, Dhamdha Naka, Durg Through Shri T.J. Pandey G.M. Now Omprakash Singh Manager In Charge, OfÏce Of The Titled Cattle Feed, Dhamdha Naka, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant. versus 1 - Aagneya Jaiswal S/o Shri Surendra Jaiswal Aged About 47 Years Proprietor Sarvesvari Agencies Chandela Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgrh. ... Non-Applicant. For Applicant For Non-Applicant : Shri Vikram Sharma, Advocate. : Ms. Anshu Ratre appears on behalf of Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocates. (Hon’ble Shri Justice ) Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 31.07.2025 1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment dated 08.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter “appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.58/2008 whereby, Non-applicant was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter “the NI Act”). 2 2. By the impugned judgment, learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal filed by the Non-applicant and reversed the judgment dated
Legal Reasoning
28.07.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (hereinafter “trial Court”) in Criminal Complaint case No.1033/2008 whereby, Non-applicant was convicted for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-. 3. As per the averments made in the complaint, complainant/applicant filed a complaint case on 13.09.2000 against Non-applicant under Section 138 of
Legal Reasoning
the NI Act which was filed through Mr. T.J. Pandey (G.M.) wherein, it has been stated that there was outstanding dues (debt) against the Non- applicant and to discharge the same, Non-applicant gave a cheque (Ex.P/1) dated 10.07.2000 amounting to Rs.5,78,955/- to the complainant. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same got dishonoured on account of insufÏciency of funds vide Ex.P/3. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent by applicant to non-applicant vide Ex.P/4 on 03.08.2000, however, despite receiving the said notice, when the cheque amount was not paid, a complaint case was filed. 4. During trial, Non-applicant/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, complainant examined Om Prakash Jain (CW- 1), Incharge Manager, Ghanshyam Waghmare (CW-2), Assistant Manager at Punjab National Bank, Durg & Ratneshwar Choudhary (CW-3), OfÏcer at Punjab & Sindh Bank, branch Bilaspur and exhibited 11 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/11. 6. Non-applicant/accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 3 Cr.P.C. pleaded false implication and took a defence that fourteen blank cheque books were given and other contents were not filled by him and he did not adduce any defence evidence. 7. Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence convicted the Non- applicant as mentioned in para 2 of this order, against which, Non- applicant preferred an appeal which was allowed. Hence this Revision. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that though the trial Court has assigned cogent reasons while convicting the non-applicant, however, learned appellate Court reversed the same only on the ground that the person who filed the complaint was not duly authorized by the State Cooperative Marketing Federation as per their bye laws. He further submits that there is legal presumption under Section 118 & 139 of the NI Act and as non-applicant himself has admitted the liability, therefore, even if no question was put under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to acceptance made by Non-applicant vide Ex.P/7, the same has no material bearing. Hence, finding arrived at by the learned appellate Court is perverse, the same may be set aside and this Revision may be allowed. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the applicant places reliance in the matter of Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar1. 9. On the contrary, learned counsel for Non-Applicant would support the impugned judgment. 10.I have heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 11.Learned appellate Court in view of the principles laid down in the matter of A.C. Narayanan and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. {AIR 2015 SC 1998} : MANU/SC/0075/2015, examined as to whether 1 (2019) 4 SCC 197 4 eligibility criteria prescribed by Section 142 (a) of the NI Act would stand satisfied when the complaint is filed by T.J. Pandey (GM) of State Cooperative Marketing Federation limited in whose name the cheque (Ex.P/1) was issued. 12.Undisputedly, complainant is a body corporate and in the complaint case, no bye laws have been filed or proved and no resolution has been filed. Even on perusal of complaint, it appears that there is no such averment to the effect that the person who has filed the complaint was authorized to do the same by the said entity. 13.In the matter of A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another2, Three-Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that if the complaint is filed for and on behalf of payee or holder in due course, that is good enough compliance with Section 142 of the NI Act and power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. 14. In light of the larger Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a subsequent judgment was passed in the matter of A.C. Narayanan and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. {AIR 2015 SC 1998} by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that the complaint was filed by employee of the company which does not fulfill the requirements under the law and materially observed at para 20, which reads as under: 20. In this case it is not in dispute that the complaint was filed by one Shri V. Shankar Prasad claiming to be General Power of Attorney of the complainant company. Subsequently PW-1 Shri Ravinder Singh gave the evidence on behalf of the Company under the General Power of 2 (2014) 11 SCC 790 5 Attorney given by the complainant Company. The complaint was not signed either by Managing Director or Director of the Company. It is also not in dispute that PW-1 is only the employee of the Company. As per Resolution of the Company i.e. Ex. P3 under first part Managing Director and Director are authorized to file suits and criminal complaints against the debtors for recovery of money and for prosecution. Under third part of the said Resolution they were authorized to appoint or nominate any other person to appear on their behalf in the Court and engage lawyer etc. But nothing on the record suggest that an employee is empowered to file the complaint on behalf of the Company. This apart, Managing Director and Director are authorized persons of the Company to file the complaint by signing and by giving evidence. At best the said persons can nominate any person to represent themselves or the Company before the Court. In the present case one Shri Shankar Prasad employee of the Company signed the complaint and the Deputy General Manager of the Company i.e. PW-1 gave evidence as if he knows everything though he does not know anything. There is nothing on the record to suggest that he was authorized by the Managing Director or any Director. Therefore, Magistrate by judgment dated 30th October, 2001 rightly acquitted the Appellant. In such a situation, the case of the Appellant is fully covered by decision by the larger bench of this Court passed in the present appeal. 15. It is equally settled that when two views are possible, then the view which is favourable to the accused should be taken. {See: Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731], V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, (2006) 10 SCC 617 & Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114 }. 16.Coming back to the facts of the present case, as the complaint was not filed in a proper manner and no resolution of the Marketing Federation has 6 been filed or proved during the trial, therefore, this Court is of the view that learned appellate Court has rightly taken the view that eligibility criteria for filing the complaint has not been satisfied. 17.Furthermore, the Marketing Federation has entered into a transaction as per the statement of Om Prakash Jain (CW-1), Incharge Manager who categorically stated that the Federation entered into a transaction with Sarvesvari Agencies, a proprietorship concern of the accused/Non- applicant but the complaint has been filed in the personal capacity of the accused. 18.In the matter of Milind Shripad Chandurkar vs. Kalim M. Khan {(2011) 4 SCC 275}, wherein, complaint was filed in the name of firm namely Vijaya Automobiles but no nexus or connection has been proved by adducing evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that mere statement in this regard would not be sufÏcient and materially observed at paras 26 & 27, which reads as under: "26. In the instant case, it is evident that the firm, namely, Vijaya Automobiles, has been the payee and that the appellant cannot claim to be the payee of the cheque, nor can he be the holder in due course, unless he establishes that the cheques had been issued to him or in his favour or that he is the sole proprietor of the concern and being so, he could also be payee himself and thus, entitled to make the complaint. The appellant miserably failed to prove any nexus or connection by adducing any evidence, whatsoever, worth the name with the said firm, namely, Vijaya Automobiles. Mere statement in the afÏdavit in this regard, is not sufÏcient to meet the requirement of law. The appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence to connect himself with the said firm. 27. It is evident that the firm had a substantial amount of business as in one month it sold the diesel to Respondent 1 - 7 a single party, for a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs. The appellant would, in addition, have also been carrying out business with other persons. Thus, a person with such a big business must have had transactions with the bank and must have been a payee of income tax, sales tax etc. Thus, in such a fact-situation, there would be no dearth of material which could have been produced by the appellant to show that he was the sole proprietor of the said firm. The appellant failed to adduce any evidence in this regard, nor made any attempt to adduce any additional evidence at the appellate stage, in spite of the fact that the respondent is raising this issue from the initiation of the proceedings. " 19. In the instant case, as per the statement of Om Prakash Jain (CW-1), the transaction is between Sarvesvari Agencies and the Federation and no document has been filed to prove any nexus, although the said fact has not been disputed by the accused/Non-applicant during the trial, however, in what manner the agreement was entered into by the Federation with the Agency and the material document of the agreement and the supply which has been made from time to time, the accounts for which the cheque had been issued as also the ledger are required to be produced during the trial but no such accounts, ledger has been produced. 20.In view of the aforesaid infirmities, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the appellate Court is possible one which does not warrant any interference.
Decision
21.In the result, this Revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash