2025:CGHC:10540 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Acq. A. No. 105 of 2020 Dainik Navbharat Through Personal Manager (Sanjay Kumar Patel), Add. - Press Complex, G.E. Road, P.S.- Maodhapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus Smt. Padmawati Das W/o Gopal Das Aged About 35 Years R/o - 90/a, Parijat Talpuri (Housing Board), P.S. - Bhilai Nagar, District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Applicant : Shri Rudra Nath Mukherjee, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Ajay Thakre, Advocate. _____________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 14/07/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the appellant / complainant, being aggrieved by the judgment of Acquittal dated 22/12/2017 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge (for short ‘ASJ’), District – Raipur (C.G.) in criminal appeal No. 209/2016. 2. By the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent against a judgment dated 08/09/2016 passed in criminal case No. 95/2011, however in the judgment of JMFC case No. 450/2011 was recorded. 3. Initially complaint was filed against two accused person namely Gopal Das and Smt. Padmavati Das. Appellant / complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.08 11:35:55 +0530 -2- Magistrate First Class, Raipur (for short ‘JMFC’). Inter-alia stating that appellant / complainant is a Commercial Institution which publishes a daily news paper namely ‘The Navbharat’. The respondent was the agent of the appellant / complainant and used to run Gopal News Agency at District - Durg. The appellant / complainant was to receive amount for running the said agency and as a part payment of the same, a cheque of Rs.1,55,000/- of IDBI Bank, Station Road, Durg dated 30/06/2010 bearing no. 014983 was given to the appellant / complainant. The cheque was signed by respondent herein which was submitted by the appellant/complainant in his its account at Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur which was returned dishonored on account of insufficient fund on 03/11/2010. A notice was sent by the appellant/complainant through its Advocate. However, the said amount was not paid. Therefore, a complaint under section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short NI Act) was presented before the JMFC. Appellant / complainant examined one Sanjay Patel, S/o. Late B.L. Patel as witness of the appellant/complainant. The respondent did not examined any witness. The learned JMFC on the basis of evidence on record vide it’s judgment dated 08/09/2016 acquitted the accused Gopal Das, however, the accused No.2 – Padmavati Das (respondent herein) was convicted for 06 months simple imprisonment and awarded Rs.1,55,000/- compensation in favour of the appellant / complainant under section 437 (a) of the CrPC in default 03 month additional simple imprisonment was imposed. 4. The said judgment was subject to challenge by the accused No. 2 – Smt. Padmavati Das (respondent herein) before the learned ASJ. The learned ASJ vide it’s impugned judgment dated 22/12/2017 set aside the judgment of JMFC and acquitted the respondent herein from charge under section 138 of the NI Act which led to filing of this appeal by the appellant / complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant / complainant vehemently argued that respondent / accused was acquitted only on the ground that the authority to file a -3- complaint by Sanjay Kumar could not be proved in accordance with law and the finding recorded by the learned ASJ with regard to acquitting the accused that as the appellant / complainant has not proved legally enforceable debt or liability, is bad in law. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned judgment passed by the ASJ may be set aside and the respondent / accused may be punished adequately including awarding the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment he submits that eh meritorious finding of acquittal may not be dismissed. Therefore, appeal deserved to be dismissed. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. This appeal was filed against two accused persons namely Smt. Padmavati Das and Gopal Das. Since accused No. 2 – Gopal Das has already been acquitted by JMFC and his name was deleted from the cause title. The appellant / complainant filed the complaint stating that it is a commercial institution and engaged in business of publishing of daily newspaper. It is also a case of the appellant / complainant that the respondent runs a newspaper agency of the appellant / complainant for the commercial transactions certain amount were due as a part payment of which, the said cheque was given which was dishonored. Perusal of complaint indicates that it is filed through Commercial Manager- Sanjay Patel. The cause title and the recital of the complaint does not indicate the status of the appellant/complainant as to whether it is a firm either proprietorship or partnership or Company or Society. The complaint simply states that it is a commercial institution which is filed through Commercial Manager. The letter of the authority has been placed on record before the JMFC which is dated 4th January, 2013 whereas the complaint was filed in 2011 itself. It indicates that it is signed by the partner of the said firm. But body of the complaint copy of the partnership deed is not available on record. 9. The learned Sessions Court while allowing the appeal of the respondent gave a categorical finding in paragraph - 13,14, 15 and 16 which is quoted as under:- -4- “ “13. A perusal of the cheque (Ex. P-1) reveals that it was issued in the name of Nav Bharat, Raipur. The original complaint in the case was filed on 10.01.2011; however, no authority letter dated the same day has been submitted in favour of Sanjay Patel. The original authority letter (Ex. P-8- C) dated 04.01.2013 has not been produced; only an attested copy has been placed on record. A perusal of the same indicates that one Sameer Maheshwari granted authority to Sanjay Kumar Patel, representing himself as a partner of Nav Bharat Press. However, no partnership deed has been produced in evidence to establish that Sameer Maheshwari was indeed a partner of Nav Bharat, or that he was competent to issue such authority. No explanation has been provided by the complainant for the non-production of the said partnership document. Consequently, no document has been brought on record to demonstrate that Sanjay Patel was duly authorised to file the complaint or to take any action in connection with it. Due to this, the factual matrix of the judgments relied upon by the respondent differs materially from the facts of the present case and, therefore, no benefit can be drawn therefrom. On the contrary, the judgments cited by the appellant support the conclusion that Sanjay Patel lacked the legal authority to institute the complaint or to depose in the capacity of the complainant. As such, the complaint was not filed by a competent person, nor was Sanjay Patel entitled to give evidence as the complainant. 14. In his cross-examination, Sanjay Patel stated that Accused No. 1 – Gopaldas is the Director of Gopal News Agency, and that both of them jointly operate the agency. He admitted that no document has been produced to establish the alleged transaction of Rs. 1,55,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty-Five Thousand only) between the Director of Gopal News Agency and Dainik Navbharat. He further stated that he does not know who wrote the contents of the cheque or in whose handwriting the same was filled. He denied the suggestion that the cheque was taken as security and asserted that the balance amount had already been deposited. He also denied the suggestion that the ink used for the signature and the rest of the text on the cheque -5- differed. However, a perusal of the cheque reveals that the signature and the remaining writings on the cheque were made using different pens, which raises doubt about its authenticity and execution. 15. Sanjay Patel admitted that the bank slip (Ex. P-2) does not bear the seal of the concerned bank. Despite this, the complainant failed to provide any explanation for the absence of the bank's seal. Though Sanjay Patel, in his affidavit, claimed that the accused persons were agents of the complainant institution in Durg, operating under the name Gopal News Agency, and involved in the sale and distribution of Dainik Navbharat newspaper in that area, he admitted during cross-examination that no document was presented to substantiate this claim. No explanation has been given by the complainant for the non-submission of such crucial documents. Further, the complainant has also failed to clarify the duration of the alleged transaction, the basis thereof, or the amount that was allegedly recoverable from the accused. These being foundational aspects of the complainant’s case, it was his primary obligation to establish them, which he failed to do. Accordingly, based on the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, the complainant/respondent has failed to prove his complaint. 16. The trial court convicted Accused No. 2 merely on the ground that the cheque bore his signature and drew a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. As regards the absence of the bank’s seal on the bank slip, the trial court accepted the bank slip as genuine solely on the basis that Accused No. 2 did not present any rebuttal evidence. However, it is settled law that under Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, the initial burden of proof lies upon the complainant to establish his case. In the present case, the complainant failed to prove that the authority letter was issued by a competent person, or that the complaint was filed by such competent person. No documentary evidence has been submitted to prove the transaction between the complainant and the accused. It was the duty of the complainant to clarify and establish the reason for the absence of the bank's seal on the bank slip, which he -6- failed to do. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court are contrary to the oral and documentary evidence on record. The judgment of conviction and sentence thus becomes unsustainable in law. In view of the above discussion, the appeal preferred by the appellant/accused is hereby allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is set aside, and the appellant is hereby acquitted of all charges.” 10. The finding of case is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to contrary to record. I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the judgment impugned. 11. In light of above, the view taken by learned trial court appears to be a possible view and does not appear to be perverse or contrary to evidence. Therefore, appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish