Back
1994 Supreme(Raj) 512
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : B.R.ARORA
MOHAN LAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
S. B. CRI. M. P. 37 Of 1993
Decided On : 11/23/1994
C.P.Trivedi, K.L.Thakur, R.N.UPADHAYA
The enquiry under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act is an administrative enquiry and does not bar criminal prosecution for the same offence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 - Section 74 - Enquiry under Section 74 - Scope and nature - Whether bars criminal prosecution - Held, no.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a bank manager, was charged with criminal breach of trust and cheating. He filed revision petitions challenging the framing of charges, which were dismissed. He then filed applications to drop the criminal proceedings on the ground that the proceedings under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act for the repayment of the amounts regarding which he is alleged to have committed criminal breach of trust had been taken, and therefore, the criminal proceedings with respect to these very items cannot continue. The applications were rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and the revision petitions challenging the rejection were also dismissed by the Special Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The enquiry under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act is an administrative enquiry regarding the liability of the petitioner for the payment of the amount which have been paid/parted with by him contrary to the provisions of the Act, the rules or the Bye-laws or the person has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society and in this enquiry the decision regarding the embezzlement of the amount has not to be gone into as the scope of the enquiry is very much limited. The enquiry is purely of an administrative nature though set up under the Rules and not in the nature of a criminal proceeding before a Court of law and, thus, the administrative enquiry under Section 74, of the Act does not amount to prosecution and punishment for an offence. This Section does not create any offence nor provides any punishment for it, but makes provision only for the defaulter to contribute for the payment of the amount which was paid by him contrary to the provisions of the Rules. The enquiry is not related to any offence under any Penal Statute and relates only to the conduct and the liability of the petitioner. Thus, the liability of the petitioner, determined under Section 74, of the Act, does not bar the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court for taking action against him under the Indian Penal Code or any other Penal Statute.
Issues: Whether the enquiry under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act bars criminal prosecution for the same offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The enquiry under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act is an administrative enquiry regarding the liability of the petitioner for the payment of the amount which have been paid/parted with by him contrary to the provisions of the Act, the rules or the Bye-laws or the person has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society and in this enquiry the decision regarding the embezzlement of the amount has not to be gone into as the scope of the enquiry is very much limited. The enquiry is purely of an administrative nature though set up under the Rules and not in the nature of a criminal proceeding before a Court of law and, thus, the administrative enquiry under Section 74, of the Act does not amount to prosecution and punishment for an offence. This Section does not create any offence nor provides any punishment for it, but makes provision only for the defaulter to contribute for the payment of the amount which was paid by him contrary to the provisions of the Rules. The enquiry is not related to any offence under any Penal Statute and relates only to the conduct and the liability of the petitioner. Thus, the liability of the petitioner, determined under Section 74, of the Act, does not bar the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court for taking action against him under the Indian Penal Code or any other Penal Statute.
Final Decision: The miscellaneous petitions challenging the order dismissing the applications to drop the criminal proceedings are dismissed.
B. R. ARORA, J.
( 1 ) THESE two miscellaneous petitions arise out of the order dated 2-11-92, passed by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Cases (Additional Sessions Judge), Jodhpur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the two revision petitions (Criminal Revision Petition No. 153/92 Mohan Lal v. The State and Criminal Revision Petition No. 154 of 1992 (Mohan Lal v. The State) filed by the petitioner. As the controversy involved in both the miscellaneous petitions is the same, therefore, both these miscellaneous petitions are disposed of by this common Order.
( 2 ) PETITIONER Mohan Lal was working with "the Jodhpur Central Co-operative Bank" (in brief, the Bank) as the Branch Manager. While he was posted at the Osian Branch of the bank during the period of June 1980 to 31/05/1982, an FIR was registered against the petitioner for committing criminal breach of trust and cheating the bank by altering the valu able securities under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. While working as the Branch Manager at the Paota Branch (Jodhpur) of the Bank during the period 4-6 82 to 31-7-82, an FIR was registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur, for committing criminal breach of trust by him with an intention to defraud the bank and he mutilated and falsified the accounts of the bank. After necessary investigations in both the aforesaid cases, the police presented challans against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cogni zance against the accused-petitioner and thereafter framed the charges in both the cases. Aggrieved with the order framing the charges, the petitioner ap proached this Court and the criminal revisions, filed by the petitioner, challenging the orders framing the charges, were dismissed by this Court. The learned Magistrate thereafter proceeded with recording of the statements of the witnesses. The petitioner there after moved applications in both these cases for dropping the criminal proceedings on the ground that the proceedings were taken by the Department under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act for the repayment of the amounts regarding which the petitioner is alleged to have committed criminal breach of trust and, therefore, the criminal proceedings with respect to these very items cannot continue and the continuation thereof will amount to abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, the criminal proceedings against him should be dropped. The learned Chief Judicial Mag istrate, by his order dated 1-11-1991, rejected both these applications filed in the aforesaid two criminal cases. The petitioner, aggrieved with the order dated 1-11-91, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Mag istrate, Jodhpur, rejecting his applications in both the cases, preferred revision petitions and both the revision petitions were decided by the learned Special Judge, E. C. Act Cases (Additional Sessions Judge), Jodhpur, by his order dated 2-11-92, who dismissed the revision petitions filed by the peti tioner. It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred these two miscellaneous petitions chal lenging the order passed by the Court below. Crimi nal Miscellaneous Petition No. 37 of 1993 relates to the FIR lodged against the petitioner at Police Sta tion, Mahamandir, Jodhpur, while Criminal Miscel laneous Petition No. 38 of 1993 relates to the FIR lodged against the petitioner at Police Station, Osian.
( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that where an accused is charged with the offence of criminal breach of trust with regard to certain items, and the question of civil liability with respect to those items has been determined by the competent Court, the criminal proceedings must therefore be dropped as its continuation will be an abuse of the process of the Court. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed relia
