Back
High Court Of Orissa
G. B. Pattanaik
RAGHUNATH MOHAPATRA - Appellant
Versus
SATYABADI PANDA - Respondent
CRI. REVN. PETN. 577 Of 1983
Decided On : 02/26/1988
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 195(1)(B) - INTERPRETATION - ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - WHETHER A "COURT" - FORGERY OF VALUABLE SECURITY - COMPLAINT BY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR NECESSARY.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the accused persons committed the offence under Section 406 as well as under Section 467, I. P. C. It was averred therein that the Aska Co-operative Central Bank had filed a dispute case against the complainant's father as well as the present accused persons and also against the Service Co-operative Society for realisation of Rs. 2794 40 paise. The complainant's father died on 15-10-1979 and had never incurred the loan as alleged. But the accused persons made false entries in the records of the Society and forged the signature of the complainant's father and used the said forged document to show that the complainant's father had incurred the loan. It was also alleged that the accused persons misappropriated the loan amount of Rs. 2000/- supposed to have been received from the Society in the name of the complainant's father by using the forged document. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies had sent a report to the police in this regard. But as police took no action, the complainant filed the petition in Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies is not a "court" within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence a complaint in writing by the Assistant Registrar is not necessary before the magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under Section 467, I. P. C. alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence by a party to any proceeding before the said Assistant Registrar.
Issues: Whether the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies is a "court" within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramrao and another v. Narayan and another, [AIR 1969 SC 724], which held that the Registrar's nominee under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is not a "court" within the meaning of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also noted that the provisions of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act are not substantially the same as the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 which was being considered by the Supreme Court in Ramarao's case (supra) and the powers of Assistant Registrar under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act are not the same as that of the nominee of the Registrar under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies. Act. The Court further noted that Section 195(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 is somewhat different from Section 195(3) of the present Code. Section 195(2) of 1898 Code was to the effect "under clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1)the term "court" includes a civil, revenue or criminal Court but does not include a Registrar or Sub-Registrar under the Indian Registration Act, 1877". It was an inclusive definition and was of a general nature without defining that the term "court" would mean and necessarily therefore, the decision had been based on examining the powers and duties which a particular tribunal was exercising. But the present provision with which we are concerned, namely, section 195 (3), Cr. P. C. states that the Court means a civil, revenue or criminal Court and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purpose of the section. In view of this definition, the Assistant Registrar under the Co-operative societies Act cannot be held to be either a civil or revenue or a criminal court and if at all it will be a tribunal under the State Act. If that be so then unless and until the State Act declares the authority to be a Court for the purpose of Section 195, Cr. P. C , then the tribunal will not be a Court for the purpose of Criminal Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The Court allowed Criminal Revision No. 55/84 and dismissed Criminal Revision No. 577/83. The Magistrate was directed to proceed with the case both under Section 406 as well as under Section- 467, I. P. C.
G. B. PATNAIK, J.
( 1 ) THESE two revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment since common facts are involved. The complainant in IOC 32/82 is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 55/84 assailing the order of the learned Magistrate cased 26-9-1983 by which order the Magistrate came to the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction to take cognisance under Section 467, I. P. C, in view of the bar provided under section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused persons and the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 577/83 challenging the order of the Magistrate dated 26-9-1983 holding the trial of the case against them for the offence under Section 406, I. P. C. to proceed.
( 2 ) THE short facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint petition alleging therein that the accused persons committed the offence under Section 406 as well as under Section 467, I. P. C. It was averred therein that the Aska Co-operative Central Bank had filed a dispute case being dispute Case No. 732/78 against the father of the complainant as well as the present accused persons and also against the Service Co-operative Society for realisation of Rs. 2794 40 paise. The further case of the complainant is that his father died on 15-10-1979 and had never incured the loan as alleged. But the accused persons made false entiles in the records of the Society and forged the signature of ihe complainant's father and used the said forged document to show that the complainant's father had incurred the loan. It was also alleged that the accused persons misappropriated the loan amount of rs. 2000/- supposed to have been received from the Society in the name of the complainant's father by using the forged document. he Assistant Registrar, co-operative Societies bad sent a report to the police in this regard. But as police took no action, the complainant filed the petition in Court. On the basis of the allegations in the complaint petition and the initial statement of the complainant, after hearing the Advocate for the complainant, the learned magistrate took cognisanee under Sections 406 and 467, I. P. C. and issued summons to the accused persons by order dated 3-7-1982. On 27-9-1982 on behalf of the accused persons an application was filed challenging the maintainability of the proceedings mainly on the ground that in view of Section 195 (1) (b), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no complaint having been registered by the Assistant Ragistrar, Co operative Societies, the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognisance. After hearing the parties at lenth, the Magistrate had
passed the order which is being impugned both by the complainant as well as by the accused person in two different revisions as stated earlier.
( 3 ) SO far as tbe revision at the instance of the complainant is concerned, the short question for consideration is whether the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative societies can be held to be a "court" within the meaning of Section 195 (1) (b)of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code no Court can take cognisance of an offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, 475 or Section 476 of the Indian Penal Code when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding, in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that court is subordinate. Under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code whoever makes any false document or pan of a document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property or to enter iato an express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed commits forgery. Section 467, I. P. C. is the offence of forgery of valuable. security and, therefore, the offence is one described in Section 463 of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
