The matter before the Chhattisgarh High Court arose from criminal proceedings initiated against the President and the Chief Municipal Officer of a Municipal Council. The proceedings were based on allegations that funds earmarked for the Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns scheme had been diverted. The complainant contended that the two officials, by virtue of their offices, were personally responsible for the alleged misapplication of public money.

Observations of the Court

The Division Bench, presided over by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, observed that the impugned decision to divert the funds was not the unilateral act of either the President or the Chief Municipal Officer. Instead, the resolution authorising the diversion had been passed unanimously by the entire Municipal Council. The Court noted that the record showed that all council members had voted in favour of the resolution, indicating a collective exercise of authority.

Legal Reasoning

The Court relied on the principle that a Municipal Council is a body corporate distinct from its individual office‑bearers. It held that where a decision is taken by the council through a valid resolution, the legal consequence of that decision attaches to the council as a whole and not to any particular member who merely participated in the deliberation. The Bench emphasized that criminal liability requires proof of personal mens rea and a direct role in the prohibited act. In the present case, there was no allegation that the President or the Chief Municipal Officer had acted outside the scope of the council’s resolution or had harboured any dishonest intention.

The Court further observed that imposing individual criminal liability on office‑bearers for collective decisions would undermine the principle of collective responsibility inherent in municipal governance. It referenced earlier judgments that have distinguished between acts performed in an official capacity pursuant to a council resolution and acts performed in a personal capacity. The Bench concluded that the allegations, as framed, did not disclose any offence attributable to the individuals in their personal capacity.

Operative Outcome

Accordingly, the Chhattisgarh High Court quashed the order that had initiated criminal proceedings against the President and the Chief Municipal Officer. The Court directed that the criminal case be dismissed and that no further action be taken against the two officials on the basis of the impugned resolution.

Implications

The decision clarifies the scope of personal liability for municipal office‑bearers when decisions are made through the formal deliberative process of the council. It reinforces the view that, absent evidence of individual wrongdoing or ultra vires action, the remedy for alleged irregularities lies in proceedings against the municipal body or in administrative remedies, rather than in criminal prosecution of the President or the Chief Municipal Officer. The judgment is likely to influence future cases where financial decisions of local bodies are questioned, providing a clear precedent that collective council resolutions shield individual members from criminal liability unless personal malafide is established.