1 / 8 2025:CGHC:54989 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 81 of 2025 Mansukh Sonwani S/o Khomlal Sonwani Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Devri, Post Khusuni, P.S. - Arjunda, District Blod (C.G.). ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate along with Ms. Vaishali Jeswani, Advocate For State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 10/11/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 415 (2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is directed against the impugned judgment dated 22/11/2024 passed by the Special Judge, (Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest) Rajnandgaon, C.G. in ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.14 10:50:39 +0530 2 / 8 Special Case (Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest) No.02/2020 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 R.I. for Three Years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. of 01 year 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Smt. Rajvantin Bai, wife of late Budhram, resident of Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, had sold her house in the year 2012 for a sum of ₹11,00,000/-. At the time of execution of the sale deed, appellant Manasukh Sonwani was present. The said amount was deposited in the bank by the appellant on the assurance that the same would be paid to the complainant whenever she required. Subsequently, the said amount was invested in the name of the complainant in Arogya Dhanvarsha Developers and Allied Ltd., and the relevant bonds were handed over to the complainant vide Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. 3. According to the prosecution, on demand of the amount by the complainant Rajwantin Bai, the amount was not returned by Mansukh Sonwani and it came to light that without the consent and knowledge of the complainant Rajwantin Bai, the said amount was deposited in Arogya Dhanvarsha Developers and Allied Limited by Mansukh Sonwani and Narayan Singh and the complainant Rajwantin Bai was told by them that she would get double the money in five years. When 3 / 8 the money was not returned, the complainant Rajwantin Bai lodged a written complaint at the Basantpur police station. 4. The further case of the prosecution is that, during investigation it came to light that Arogya Dhanvarsha Developers and Allied Limited had started business by opening a financial establishment in District Rajnandgaon, therefore, on the basis of investigation of the complaint, the then Assistant Sub Inspector Anaram Sahu (PW-17) registered a case against Mansukh Sonwani and Narayan Singh and Chief Manager of the said company under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 (5) and Sub-section (10) of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interests Act, 2005. Under this, Crime No. 136/2017 was registered by registering the First Information Report. 5. The further case of the prosecution is that during the investigation by Assistant Sub-Inspector Anaram Sahu (PW-17), upon the production of Rajwantin Bai (PW-1), bonds/certificates issued by the company and certificates of other investors were seized as per seizure memo (Exhibit P-1). He sent a letter to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, seeking information about the company. Accused No. 5, Mansukh Sonwani, inquired about the deposit of Rs. 9,50,000/-, the sale proceeds of Rajwantin Bai (PW-1), into his own account. A certificate to that effect was obtained by writing a letter (Exhibit P-63) to the Indian Bank, and the company's promotional documents were also seized. 6. The further case of the prosecution is that, the Registrar of Companies 4 / 8 Information was collected from the office of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior through Exhibit P-80 that Arogya Dhanvarsha Developers and Allied Limited was registered with the Registrar of Companies, Gwalior in the year 2010-11 and its Corporate Identity Number was U70101MP2010PLC-024131. According to the Memorandum of Association attached with Exhibit P-80, the directors of Arogya Dhanvarsha Developers and Allied Limited were Rajendra Singh Sisodiya (accused no. 04), Raghuveer Singh Rathore (accused no. 01), Jagdishchandra Vyas (accused no. 03), Dharmendra Singh Songara (accused no. 02) and others, to whom notices were given by the investigating officer Assistant Sub Inspector Anaram Sahu under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Exhibit P-69 to Exhibit P-72 respectively, case diary statements of the investors were recorded and after arresting the accused and completing other formal proceedings of investigation, a case was registered against the accused Raghuveer Singh Rathore, Dharmendra Singh, Jagdishchandra Vyas, Rajendra Singh Sisodiya, Mansukh Sonwani and Narayan Singh Aimala under Section 10 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Smt. Rashmi Netam), Rajnandgaon. The charge sheet was filed under Section 420 read with 34 and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interests Act, 2005 from where the case was received by this Court after acquisition. 7. The appellant abjured his guilt during trial and claimed to be tried. The prosecution on its behalf examined as many as 19 witnesses and 5 / 8 exhibited 83 documents. The learned trial Court after evaluating the facts & evidence convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the charges of Section 6(5) and 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2006, therefore, in view of this the case of the prosecution is false. She would next contend that the appellant has not cheated the complainant as there is no ingredient of deceitful intention on the part of the appellant because according to the complainant herself the appellant has deposited the wholesome amount in Arogya Dhanwarsha Developers and Allied Limited and has not gain any financial benefit which amounts to wrongful gain. She would next contend that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant after lapse of five years, therefore, this inordinate delay in lodging the FIR raises a doubt. She would next contend that at the time of sale of the house the reason stated by the complainant was due to heart attack to her son, however, the said fact has not been reflected in her statements, therefore, this also makes the case forged. She would, therefore, pray that the order passed by the trial Court requires interference by this Court and the appellant may be acquitted of the charges leveled against him. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is well merited which do not call for any interference. 6 / 8 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence. 11. The complainant Rajvantin Bai (PW-1) has stated in her deposition that in the year 2012 she has sold the house and she wanted to get the said amount deposited and for that they handed over the same to the appellant which the appellant had invested in a company. In para 8 she has stated that the police has seized the five bonds. In her cross-examination at para 15 she has admitted that she has lodged the report against the appellant in the year 2017. 12. Raju Sahu (PW-2), who is the son of the complainant has stated that the police has seized five bonds of Arogya Dhan Varsha Company in his presence from his mother and the seized bonds are Ex. P/2, P/3, P/4, P/5 & P/6. He further in para 2 has admitted that the aforesaid bonds are in the name of his mother. Vikas Shrivastava (PW-3) in para 2 has stated that the appellant had invested the amount in Argogya Dhan Varsha Developers and Allied Company Limited. 13. On careful scrutiny of the evidence and material on record it shows that the complainant did not raise any objection for a continuous period of about five years. It was only thereafter that she made allegations that she did not receive the sale proceeds. The record further reveals that the accused did not utilize the said amount for his own benefit; rather, the amount was invested in the name of the complainant and corresponding documents were duly handed over to her. 14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, wherefrom 7 / 8 this Court is of the view that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the appellant at any stage. The transaction was done with implied consent of the complainant, and the act of depositing the amount in the company in the complainant’s name and delivering bonds to her constitutes a bona fide act, not one of deception or cheating. The delay of five years in raising objection by the complainant further strengthens the defence version that the complainant had voluntarily permitted the said investment and was aware of the transaction. There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant misappropriated or dishonestly induced the complainant to part with her money. Hence, the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not satisfied, as there is absence of fraudulent or dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction. The finding of the learned trial court that the appellant deceived the complainant is therefore not sustainable in law. 15. Accordingly, it is thus held that the complainant herself gave the sale proceeds to the appellant without any objection, and after five years, she falsely alleged non-payment. The accused did not use the money for himself but deposited it in the name of the complainant and duly handed over bonds vide Ex. P-1 and P-2. The same is a bona fide act done in good faith, and no element of cheating or deception is made out. The transaction was with implied consent of the complainant 16. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 22/11/2024. Appellant stands acquitted of the charges leveled against him. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall remain operative 8 / 8 for a period of 06 months in view of Section 437A of CrPC (now Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 17. The lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu