An offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is cognizable under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and prosecution under the IPC is permissible even if the offences might also have been committed under the Act, as per Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

( 1 ) THE petitioner who is Chairman of Bankura District Co-operative and Rural Developmental Bank Ltd. , (hereinafter referred to as the said Bank) had filed a writ application for quashing a First Information Report which has been dismissed by the learned trial Judge relying upon a decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992 0 Crlj 527.

( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner had been associated with the said Bank for a long time in one capacity or the other. On the basis of the reports made by the Registrar of the Co-operative Society, the State of West Bengal by an order dated 30-10-98 directed immediate dissolution of the Board of Directors. The validity of the said order was questioned by filing a writ application in this Court which ultimately was allowed by a division bench of this Court in F. M. A. T. No. 4186 of 1998 by an order dated 25-1-99, inter alia, on the ground that no reason had been assigned therefor by the State as was mandatorily required under sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act 1983 (hereinafter referred to and called for the sake of brevity as the said Act.) However, pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order dated 30-10-98 the Board of Directors appointed by the State of West Bengal had taken over the management of the said Society. The Executive Chairman of the said Board in addition of his duties, having come to learn of alleged financial irregularities committed by one Anupam Ghatak which was aided and abated by the appellant herein lodged a First Information Report. However, to complete the narration of facts it may be stated that in terms of the leave granted by the division bench of this Court, the State of West Bengal, on the basis of the recommendations made by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, had issued another Notification on 12-2-99 whereby and whereunder the Board of Director of the Society was dissolved.

( 3 ) MR. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, submitted that the First Information Report dated 12-1-99 would clearly show that the entire allegation has been made against Anupam Ghatak. The learned Counsel submits that therein merely the name of the writ petitioner had been included as a person with whose knowledge, the said alleged financial irregularities have been committed.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel, even assuming that the writ petitioner-appellant had any hand in commission of the aforementioned penal offence, the same being within the purview of Chapter XVI of the said Act, no cognizance thereof could be taken by the Officer-Incharge concerned inasmuch as in terms of Section 139 of the Act the offence is a non-cognizable one. The learned Counsel further submits that sub-section (3) of Section 139 of the said Act mandates that no prosecution shall be instituted under the Act without the previous sanction of the Registrar.

( 5 ) IT was further submitted that only offence which has been made cognizable in term of sub-section (4) of Section 139 of the Act is punishable under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of any moveable property of a Co-operative Society.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel submits that keeping in view the fact that the respondents have elected to take recourse to the provision of the said Act, the police authorities committed an illegality in registering a case against the petitioner and other under Section 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of the aforementioned contention reliance has been placed on Om Prakash v. State of U. P. reported in AIR 1957 SC 458 : (1957) Cri LJ 575 and Beliah v. Bangachari reported in AIR 1969 SC 701 at page 706.

( 7 ) MR. Roy, the learned Counsel, appearing onbehalf of the State of West Bengal, on the other hand, submitted that bare perusal of the First Information Report would clearly s