•T <"-( '••»>.. 1. ^' '? •sngteBench y< IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Cr. M. P. No.^ll 0 PETITIONER ACCUSED N0. 1 ,^\$<-Q^ ^•'^^^ •N<%&^ RESPONDENT VERSUS 1. MOHD. SAMI ANSARI, S/o late Shri Abdul Hafiz, Age about 50 Years, Occupation - Contractor, R/o Mison Complex, Shop No. - 2, Seoni, Tahsil District - Seoni (M. P.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Raipur(C.G.) COMPLAINANT 2. Sunil KumarJain, S/o Manikchand Jain, R/o Purani Basti, Raipur, Police Thana - Purani Basti, District-Raipur(C.G.). •^e-a^uA- 1L\ I'atfi^ ACCUSED No. 2 3. >» Vijay Bafna, S/o Hukum - _.__..., Chand Bafna, R/o M. I. G. ^^| 124, Padnabhpur, District- RaTpor(C.G.) '&^ 8((dl- PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OFCRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973. 'ij^ '!^s!!y^~ s^^s^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CT.M.P. No.69/2010 Mohd. Sami Ansari Versus Stete of Chhanisgarh and others PETITION UNDER SECTiON 482 OF THE CODEOF CRtMINAL PROCEDURE Present: - Shri Yogesh Pandey, counsel for the peiitioner. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Pane! Lawyer for the Stats. Shri Anil Singh Rajput, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Shh/endu Pandya, counsel for respondenf No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18th of July, 2011) By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 23/04/08 passed in Criminal Case No.270/08 registering offence under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. 2. Respondent No.2-Sunil Kumar Jain flled a compiaint under Section 138 of theNegotiabie Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act of 1881") against the petitioner and respondent No.3 on the aliegation that in a business transaction, towards discharge of certain llability against purchase of certain items, respondent No.3 had issued a cheque of Rs.2,14,000/- in favour of the compiainant. However, when the cheque was presented in the bank on 20/12/08, the same was dishonoured with a note dated 21/01/08 that the fund in the account is insufficient. On the complaint so made, the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 23/4/08, ^ V after going through the complaint and other documents, found that prfma facie case is made out and further directed registratlon of orfence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 against the petitioner and respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order and registration of offence against the petitioner, the petitioner preferred a revision. The learned Revisional Court however, has dismissed the revision holding that the order of issuing process is interiocutory in nature against which, no revision wouid iie. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner agued that the ofrence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 can be said to be made out only by one who has drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. In his submission, the Court below had committed gross illegality in registering offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 against the petitioner because even accordtng to the compiaint, the cheque was issued by respondent No.3 - Vijay Bafna. Therefore, it is submitted that no case for registering offence under Section 138 of the Act of1881 is made out against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the cheque was though issued by respondent No^, the same was towards discharge of tiabiiity of the petitioner who had purchased various items from the complainant and as the criminal liabiiity is fastened, in case, the cheque is dishonoured towards discharae of debt or liabjiitv then the petitioner is also liable to be prosecuied for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act of1881. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.T supports the submission of respondent No.2 whereas learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that no case for registration of ofrence under Section 138 is made out either against the petitioner or respondent No.3. 6. Dishonour or cheque on insufficiency of funds in the account has been declared to be an offence under Sectton 138 of the Act of 1881. The provision contained in Section 138 ofthe Act of 1881 read out that where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him for payment of any amount of money to another person towards discharge in whole br in part of any debt or liabitity, is retumed by the bank unpaid either because of the amount of money standing to the cnedit or that account is insufficfent to honour the cheque or that tt exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made wfth that bank, such person shali be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of the Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two yeare or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. 7. The word "such pereon" mentioned in Section 138 mean and refer to the pereon who has actuaily drawn ihe cheque on an account maintained 'V, ff l l h—?:€%., ;1 ''sSfiS.^"'*'! ^ 4 3^ by him for pa^ment of any amount of money to another person. The iegislature, therefore, intends to make liable for offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, one who has issued the cheque. There is no other provision in the Act, much less, in Sectton 138 which even remotety suggests that any person in addition to one who has actually issued the cheque shaii also be liable for commisslon of ofrence under Sectlon 138 CrPC in the event of dishonour of cheque In the cireumstances mentloned in the provision. It is weli settled that a panel statute has to be strictly construed and such provisions could not be liberaliy constmed, so as to extend or eniarge the scope and ambit, which is not specificaily expressed in the provision. The contention of learned eounsel for respondent No.2 that though the cheque was not issued by the petitioner but it was the liabiHty of the petitioner in discharge of which the cheque vsrasissued by respondent No.3, thererore, the petitioner is aiso Itable for being prosecuted, requires to be rejected at the threshold. The provision is very clear, unambiguous and unequivocal and operates against one, who has issued the cheque. Therefore, t am of the opinion that registratiqn of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act agalnst the petitioner is not at all made out on the face of complaint m view of the specific stand taken by the compfainant in the complaint that the cheque was issued by respondent No.3. 8. Accordlngty, the impugned order dated 23/04/08 r^istering offence against the petitioner and issuance of process is hereby quashed. The petition is altowed. 5d/. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Deefrfi