When there is a special Act with its own penal provisions, the general provisions of the Indian Penal Code will not be applicable. If there is a conflict between the two, the special provisions under the special Act will prevail.

P.K.Deb, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in complaint case no. 414 of 1994 including the order dated 29.4.1995 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bagaha, taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued processes against the petitioners.

2. The admitted position remains that the complainant, opposite party no. 2 is a cane-grower within the reserve area of the Sugar Factory in the name and style of Hari Nagar Sugar Mills. In the year 1991, the complainant had taken some loan through Hari Nagar Sugar Mills from the bank and money was deducted by Hari Nagar Sugar Mills towards the loan from the cane bieng supplied by the complainant to the sugar factory. According to the petition of the complainant, the said amount has been deducted and adjusted from the supply of the sugarcane by the sugar factory but the sugar factory, however, is showing the loan in the accounts itself, ft has further been stated that in the crushing season 1991-92 about 2000 quintals of sugarcane has been damaged of the complainant because the sugar factory did not lift those sugarcane for the sugar mill. According to the complainant, he went many times but the petitioners, who happen to be office bearers of the sugar factory, have not paid heed to the complainants grievance regarding settlement of accounts. It has further been stated that although the accounts have not been settled up-til-now the sugar factory had also stopped the payment of the price of the sugarcane. The complainant has been examined on oath and after taking down statement of some of the witnesses during the course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and processes were issued.

3. The first and foremost submission of the petitioners regarding the non- maintainability of the criminal proceeding is that the dealings of the complainant with that of the sugar factory of which the petitioners are employees are governed by the different provisions of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 and the deduction and loan being paid to the Bank through the sugar factory is within the permissible Clause under the Act itself and, as such, the said deduction made by the Sugar Mill cannot be said to be illegal. Moreover, it is submitted that the Act as mentioned above is a self-contained Act and it has got all the provisions of settling all the disputes between the supplier of sugarcane and sugar factory and also regarding violation of any provisions by either of the parties for the purpose of penalty being imposed for the criminal prosecution. It is submitted that as per the complainants complaint petition the grievance of the complainant is that he had not been supplied with proper accounts and settlement of accounts have not been made between the two. Such grievance of the complainant comes within the purview of Section 46 of the Act and such dispute can be referred to the authority prescribed under the Act and there is also appeal provisions regarding settlement of such disputes and it is submitted that the complainant without going for such settlement of dispute has come up with a criminal prosecution which is not maintainable. Moreover, Sections 52 and 53 of the Act also provide for penalty regarding the offence being committed in violation of the different provisions of the Act to discharge all liabilities and responsibilities and it is submitted that when a self contained Spl. Act is there along with its penal provisions, there is no scope of attracting provisions of the Indian Penal Code and in this respect reference has been made to 1961 (SC) 1170 (J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh & others) and 1988 (SC) 912 (Manahau Ram and another V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh)