Dilip Agrawal S/o Madan Agrawal, Aged About 46 Years R/o Rahoud, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District v. 1 - Narendra Kumar Thawait S/o Late M.R. Thawait, Aged About 40 Years, Occupation
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34837 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 54 of 2019 Dilip Agrawal S/o Madan Agrawal, Aged About 46 Years R/o Rahoud, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Narendra Kumar Thawait S/o Late M.R. Thawait, Aged About 40 Years, Occupation Government Service (Sahayak Antrik Lekha Parikchak Avem Kararopan Adhikari) Janpad Panchayat Tamnar, R/o Ramgudipara, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Beena Devi W/o Sushil Kumar Patel, Aged About 32 Years, Ex Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Konargarh, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly made a party before Appellate Court) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 ACQA No. 48 of 2019 Dilip Agrawal S/o Madan Agrawal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Rahoud, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Beena Devi W/o Sushil Kumar Patel, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Konargarh, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District- Magistrate, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Appellants : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate For Respondent – : Mr. Harsh Wardhan, Advocate Narendra Kumar Thawait For Respondent – Mr. Vishwanath Shrivas, Advocate on behalf Smt. Beena Devi of Mr. Parasmani Shriwas, Advocate For State Ms. Nupur Sonkar, Panel Lawyer /respondent Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 22/07/2025 3 1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same and the subject-matter also being the same, they are being
Decision
disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These two Appeals have arisen out of the judgment (s) dated 20.6.2018 passed in Criminal Appeals No.34/2018 & 35/2018 respectively by the Sessions Judge, District Janjgir- Champa (CG), reversing the judgment dated 30.4.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh in Complaint Case No.589/2008, whereby, the respondents/accused have been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “the Act, 1881”). By the impugned judgment(s), the respondents/accused have been acquitted from the said charge. 3. As per the averments made in the complaint, complainant Dileep Agrawal (CW-1) is a Dealor of the iron bars and cement, conducting business at Village Rahod. At the relevant time, Respondent Beena Devi was the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Konargarh and respondent Narendra Kumar Thawait was the Secretary of the said Village Panchayat. The respondents had purchased Cement and TMT bars from the complainant amounting to Rs. 1 lakh. For repayment of the same, the respondents/accused issued a cheque dated 18.9.2007 in the name of the Village Panchayat, Konargarh (Ex.P/1) in favour of the complainant. When the said cheque was presented for 4 encashment, it was dishonoured vide Ex.P/2. Thereafter, a legal notice (Ex.P/6) was sent. However, despite the said notice, the cheque amount remained unpaid, leading to the filing of the present complaint. 4. During the trial, the respondents/accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove his case, the complainant examined himself and Keertan Lal Patwa (CW-2) and exhibited 7 documents vide Ex.P/1 to P/7. The respondents/accused in their statement stated that they have been falsely implicated. The respondents stated that the cheque in question was issued in their official capacities i.e. as the then Sarpanch and the then Panchayat Secretary of Village Panchayat, Konargarh. They further stated that the cheque (Ex.P/1) was not drawn from their personal accounts but from the account of Village Panchayat, Konargarh. Therefore, they are not personally liable for discharging the debt of the Village Panchayat, as they acted in the capacity of public servants under the Village Panchayat Act. Furthermore, no defence evidence was examined. 5. The trial Court, by the judgment dated 30.4.2018, after evaluating the evidence, convicted each of the respondents/accused under under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and sentenced them to 3 months’ simple imprisonment each, along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment each separately. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the 5 respondents/accused preferred two different appeals, which were allowed by the impugned judgments dated 20.6.2018. Hence, these two separate Acquittal Appeals have been filed against the respondents/accused. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that the Appellate Court has wrongly acquitted the respondents/accused, despite the trial Court having recorded cogent reasons. He submits that the judgment passed by the trial Court is well merited and Appellate Court has committed a legal error in allowing the appeals by the impugned judgment. Hence, learned counsel for the appellant prays that both the appeals be allowed and the respondents/accused be convicted, as there are legal presumptions under the Act, 1881. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused would support the impugned judgment. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 9. On perusal of the cheque (Ex.P/1), it is evident that the said cheque was not issued from the personal account of the respondents/accused. Furthermore, Village Panchayat Konargarh has not been arrayed as a respondent/accused in the complaint filed by the complainant. The Act, 1881, contains a specific provision (Section 141) regarding offences committed by Companies. The Act also includes an explanation defining “company”, which means any body corporate and includes a firm 6 or other association of individuals. In view of the aforesaid explanation of Section 141 of the Act 1881, the Gram Panchayat will be deemed a body corporate under the Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and Section 11 of the said Act is relevant. For the sake of brevity, Section 11 is reproduced hereunder : “11. Incorporation of Panchayats.- Every Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat shall be body corporate by the name specified, therefor in the order under Section 3 for village or notification under Section 10 for Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat as the case may be, having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by the said name, sue and be sued and shall subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, have power to acquire, hold or transfer property movable or immovable, to enter into contracts and to do all other things necessary for the purpose of this Act. 10. In the matter of Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Ltd.,1 which was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ajit Balse Vs. Ranga Karkere2, it was observed that the company is a necessary party, and in the absence of the company as an accused, no other person acting on behalf of the company can be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1. (2012) 5 SCC 661 2. (2015) 15 SCC 748 7 11. In view of the aforesaid legal provisions and the law laid down in Aneeta Hada (supra), it is clear that the complaint was not maintainable against the Secretary and Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat, Konargarh. Furthermore, the Appellate Court has also assigned cogent reasons, as the presumption under Sections 138 and 139 of the Act, 1881 has been rebutted by the respondents/accused. 12. For the foregoing, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment(s) passed by the Appellate Court. 13. Resultantly, the Appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna