IMPORTANT POINTS
The immunity granted under Section 106 of the Act is not a total immunity. The protection or immunity granted therein is only in respect of any act done or purported to be done in good faith, under the provisions of the Act or the Rules or the bye-laws thereunder. First of all, the act of the public servant, or the act of any member of a Co-operative Society, to claim immunity under Section 106 of the Co-operative Societies Act, must be an act done or purported to be done in the discharge of functions under the Act, or the said act must have direct nexus with the official functions under the Act. Secondly, the said act must have been done in good faith. The concept of good faith protected under Section 106 of the Act must have direct nexus with the discharge of functions under the Act.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners in these proceedings are the different accused in two prosecutions, one pending before the Special Court (Vigilance), Kozhikode and the other pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur. Common questions of law are involved in all these petitions and so, all these petitions were heard together, and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 9110/2016 is the 4th accused in C.C. No. 16/2008 of the Special Court (Vigilance), Kozhikode and the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 8548/2016 is the 8th accused therein. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3612/2017 is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 880/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur and the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 5155/2013 is the 3rd accused therein. All the petitioners, including the writ petitioner seek orders quashing the prosecution as against them on factual as well as legal grounds. The common legal grounds involved in the four matters are:-

(a) Whether the cognizance is barred under sub-section (4) of Section 95 of the Co-operative Societies Act.

(b) Whether there is total immunity from prosecution under Section 106 of the Co-operative Societies Act.

Though factual grounds are also alleged to obtain relief quashing the whole prosecution, I find, on a perusal of the materials, that, on factual aspects, there are prima facie materials to proceed and I do not find any reason or ground to allow the request. Before going to the legal aspects, let me see the factual allegations in the two cases.

2. In C.C. No. 16/2008 of the Special Court (Vigilance), Kozhikode, the trial court has already framed charge against the accused. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 therein are respectively the President, the Secretary and the Senior Clerk of the Keezhariyor Service Co-operative Bank Limited, and the accused Nos. 5 to 8 are the Director Board Members of the Cooperative Bank. The 4th accused is the person appointed and authorised by the Co-operative Bank as per a resolution passed by the Board of Directors, for procuring copra for the Co-operative Bank under the "Support Price Scheme" for the period from 3.5.2000 to 7.8.2000. The case of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kozhikode Unit in C.C. No. 16/2008 of the Special Court is that, as part of a criminal design hatched by the office bearers of the Keezhariyor Service Co-operative Bank with the 4th accused, with the object of making unlawful pecuniary gain out of the transactions of the Co-operative Bank, the 4th accused was appointed by the Board of Directors to procure copra for the Co-operative Bank, and as part of the said conspiracy, the accused Nos. 2 and 3, with the knowledge and connivance of the others, including the President, made false documents, short accounted huge quantity of copra worth Rs. 1,21,420/- purchased 435.45 quintals of copra worth Rs. 15,82,456.75 from the open market under false bills, they thus cheated the farmers, committed criminal misappropriation and breach of trust by making an unlawful pecuniary gain of Rs. 3,21,572/- by abusing their position as public servants and they also caused corresponding loss to the Co-operative Bank. The 4th accused is a nonpublic servant, but he is being roped in under Section 120B IPC as the person, who had active participation and complicity with the President and the other office bearers of the Co-operative Bank.

3. The prosecution in C.C. No. 880/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur relates to some mal practices and misappropriation of funds of the Pathanapuram Service Co-operative Bank. The 1st accused therein was the Secretary of the said Co-operative Bank, the 2nd accused was the Pharmacist-cum-Manager of a Neethi Medical Store under the Cooperative Bank, and the 3rd accused was the President of the said Co-operative Bank. The prosecution case in the final report submitted by the Additional Sub Inspector of the Pathanapuram Police Station is