Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1064 (PAT)

Shital Singh v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-14

SUBASH CHANDRA JHA

body2006
Judgment Subash Chandra Jha, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This is and application for quashing the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 547/2002, Tr.No. 2035/2002 as well as order dated 2.5.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class/Metihari Sri D.P. Keshri. 3. The complainant has sold sugar cane to the Eastern Sugar and Industries Limited, having its Head-quarter at Calcutta, West Bengal, and one of the unit is situated at Motihari. Accused No. 2 of the complaint petition i.e. Motihari Chini Udyog, Motihari, East Champaran, Bihar, through its Executive Chairman opened an account in the name of the complainant and issued two cheques thereon for payment of the price which was Rs. 16,572.00 . When the two cheques were presented before Champaran Area Gramin Bank, Branch-Shankar Sariya, the same were not honoured because insufficiency of fund. The complainant after such dishonour of the cheques gave legal notice to Accused No. 1 Eastern Sugar and Industries Limited, but the same was not paid. 4. Contention has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that Eastern Sugar and Industries Limited is a company registered under the Company Act, 1956 having its registered office at Calcutta and a Unit of the company is situated at Motihari which is engaged in the manufacture of sugar named and styled as Motihari Chini Udyog. The complainant is a farmer who supplied sugar cane in the year 2001-2002 for which two cheques were issued so him by Chandan Kumar Garodia and R.N. Bhatt, accused Nos. 11 and 12 respectively. Chandan Kumar Garodia is the Vice-President, Finance, Motihari Chini Udyog, Motihari and R.N. Bhatt is Manager, Human and Resources Development, Motihari Chini Udyog, Motihar, as stated in the complaint petition. 5. It has been stated that the petitioner Shital Singh has no concern with the day to day affair of sugar cane nor he has issued any cheque on behalf of the will in favour of the complainant. 6. On 7.3.2003 a petition was filed on behalf of the aforesaid sugar will that their case will be represented by an Officer of the Company, namely, Sri P.K. Jain, and the learned court below directed for deposit of the entire cheque amount within thirty days from the date of the order alognwith interest @18% which comes to Rs. 20,052.00 which was paid by the Company and received by the complainant on 11.3.2003. 20,052.00 which was paid by the Company and received by the complainant on 11.3.2003. Further submission is that the petitioner is an Officer of the Company who has no financial power to issue any cheque, rather Board of Directors of the Company had taken a resolution to extend such power to the aforesaid two persons, namely accused Nos. 11 and 12 to issue cheques on behalf of the Company. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred Sec. 141 of the N.I. Act in order to support his contention that the petitioner on account of such application of relevant provision of law, is not liable for facing trial in respect of dishonour of the cheques. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State also did not controvert the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the facts and circumstances when such cheques were not issued by the petitioner, rather the same were issued by two persons, namely, accused Nos. 11 and 12, who were duly authorised by the Board of Directors of the company to issue cheques and that when the complainant got satisfied by receipt of his due payment there is no sense in continuing such proceeding against the petitioner. 8. Two decisions of this Court by two different Benches have been cited, namely, Cr. Misc. No. 21879 of 2003 (Shital Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Anr.) and Cr. Misc. No. 35176 of 2003 (Mahesh Prasad Dhandhaniya and Anr. V/s. The State of Bihar and Anr.) disposed of on 7.4.2006 and 23.9.2004 respectively, to show that similar aspect of the matter have been considered in those two cases which should also be upheld by this Court. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State also conceded the factual and legal position. 10. In the facts and circumstances, I do find that the impugned order requires interference by this Court so far the proceeding against the petitioner is concerned. 11. In the result, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 347/2002, Tr.No. 2036/2002, as also the impugned order dated 2.5.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, are quashed.