Rama Rao vs Narayan - 1968 Supreme(SC) 390

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1968 Supreme(SC) 390

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
Ramrao and another, Appellants
Versus
Narayan and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 51of 1967
D/-20-l2-1968.
Advocates appeared
M/s. R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, C. V.Kalikar, S. K. Dhingra and M. S. Gupta, Advocates, for Appellants; 726 Dr. W.S. Barlingay, Senior Advocate, (Mr. A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 1; M/s. H. R. Khanna and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, for Respondent No. 2.

Headnote:
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 93, 146, 148 (3), 146 (p), 95, 2 (2), 91, 93(3), 93, 91, 94 (3), 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 20, 465, 471, 475, 476, 172 to 188, 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 228, 195 (1) (b), 476, 476-B - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 195, 195 (2) - Indian Registration Act, 1877 - Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 47 - Calcutta Improvement (Appeals) Act, 1911 - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 33 and 36 - Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 - City of Bombay Improvement Act, 1898 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 - Section 3 (1) – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 809, 810 and 254 (2) Memership of Bank - Entitled to Participate in Election - Dishonestly and Fraudulently Introduced a Cause - Whether Registrar s nominee is a Court - Whether for purpose of foregoing subsection a matter referred to for decision is a dispute or not - Whether a tribunal is a judicial body - Whether the Registrar is a "Court" within meaning of Section 195 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure - Whether Maharashtra State Legislature was competent to repeal provisions of Section 465, I. P. Code – Held, Court is unable to accept a contention that these two sections- S. 146 (p) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and Section 465, I. P. Code-are intended to deal with same offence - It is true that certain acts may fall within both sections - For instance, tampering with or altering or falsifying any register, book of account or security, or making any false or fraudulent entry in register, book of account or document belonging to society, may when done with requisite intention mentioned in Section 464 read with Section 463 I. P. Code be also an offence under S. 146 (p) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act - Section146 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, does not make any such intention as is referred to in Sections 463 and 464, I. P. Code an ingredient of offence it also renders a person who is merely privy to destruction mutilation, alteration, falsification or secreting or to making of any false or fraudulent entry in any register, book of account or document belonging to society liable to be punished under Section 146 (p) - Offence may be committed under Section 146 only by an officer or member-past or present-of society - Even destruction or secreting of a document or security is penalised under Section 146 of Act - It is clear from a perusal of Section 146 (p) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and Secs.463 and 464 I. P. Code that they are two distinct offences which are capable of being committed with different intentions by different sets of persons and it could not be contemplated that Legislature of State of Maharashtra Co-operative repeal pro tanto provisions of Section 465, I. P. Code by enactment of Section 146 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act - It is unnecessary in the circumstances to consider the question whether the Maharashtra State Legislature was competent to repeal the provisions of Section 465, I. P. Code - Law relating to Co-operative Societies may be enacted in exercise of power under List II Entry 32 of Seventh Schedule to Constitution but if Section 146 is directly intended to trench upon a provision of Indian Penal Code-falling within List II, Entry 1, sanction of President under Article 254 (2) would apparently be necessary - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

SHAH, J.- The Nagpur District Land Development Bank Ltd., is registered as a society under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. One Narayan Tanbaji Murkute applied for memership of the Bank as a "nonborrowing member". At a meeting of the Bank held on June 30, 1964, the application of Murkute and of 94 others were granted and they were enrolled as members. But in the list of members entitled to take part in the General Meeting dated June 30, 1964 the names of Murkute and others were not included.

2. Murkute and others then applied to the Registrar Co-operative Societies for an order declaring that they were entitled to participate in the election of office bearers and for an injunction restraining the President and the Secretary from holding the annual General Meeting. The Registrar referred the dispute for adjudication under S. 93 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960, to H.V. Kulkarni, his nominee. The nominee decided the dispute on May 7, 1965 and held that Murkute and other applicants were members of the Bank. In the proceeding before the nominee certain documents including the minutes book of the Bank were produced. It is claimed by Murkute that those books were fabricated by the President and the Secretary with a view to make it appear that Murkute and other persons were never elected members of the Bank.

3. On August 7, 1965 Murkute filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, charging the President and Secretary of the Bank with committing offences under Ss. 465 and 471 I. P. Code. It was alleged in the complaint that the two accused had dishonestly and fraudulently introduced a clause in Resolution No. 3 appearing in the minutes book with the intention of causing it to be believed that the clause was part of the original Resolution passed by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on June 80= 1964, whereas it was known to them that at that meeting no such clause was passed.

4. The two accused raised an objection that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint without the previous sanction of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 148 (3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The trial Court rejected the contention. The order was confirmed by the Court of Session and the High Court of Bombay.

5. In this Court counsel for the accused raised two contentions - (1) that the nominee of the Registrar appointed under Section 95 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, was a "Court" within the meaning of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure, and a complaint for offences under Sections 465 and 471 I. P. Code alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, cannot be entertained except on a complaint in writing of such Court, or of a Court to which it is subordinate; and (2) that offences charged in the complaint fell within the description of the offences under Section 146 (p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and without the sanction of the Registrar the complaint was not maintainable.

6. Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure insofar as it is relevant provides:

"(1) No Court shall take cognizance

(a) * * * * * *

(b) * * * * * *

(c) of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471 * * when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, except on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate.

"(2) In clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" includes 2 Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, but does not include a Registrar or Sub-Registrar under the Indian Registration Act, 1877."

Murkute complained that the President and the Secretary of the Bank who were parties to the proceeding before the nomine

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1968 Supreme(SC) 390

Cases Referred (5)