The reference to the arbitrator under S. 55 of the Act does not bar criminal proceedings on the same cause of action.

S.S.SODHI, J.

1. Where a matter is referred to arbitration u/ S. 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 , is initiation thereafter of criminal proceedings, on the same cause of action against the person concerned, barred? Herein lies the controversy referred to a larger Bench by A.P. Chowdhri, J. noticing an apparent conflict of views on the subject in a string of judicial precedents of this Court. These being Janak Raj V/s. State of Punjab, 1979 Ch LR (Pb. and Hy) 236; Harbhagwan Das V/s. The State of Punjab (1983) 2 RCR 156 Bant Singh V/s. The Dulley Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. (1987) 2 RCR 435, (i) Kashmira Singh V/s. The State of Punjab; (1989) 1 RCJ 175 and; Criminal Misc. 429-M of 1987 Hakam Singh V/s. State of Punjab decided on 20/02/1987 on the one hand, where it has been held that after reference to arbitration, criminal proceedings on the same cause of action are barred, while on the other, the contrary opinion that such criminal proceedings can be taken finds expression in Harbans Singh V/s. State of Punjab (1972) 74 PLR 26 and Rajpal Singh V/s. The State of Haryana, 1977 PLR 624 (1978 Cri LJ 609).

2. In referring this controversy to a larger Bench, A.P. Chowdhri, J. made clear his preference for the latter view as set forth in Harbans Singh and Raj Pal Singhs cases (Supra).

3. The point to note at the very outset is that the matter in issue already stands settled and decided by the judgment of the Division Bench in Criminal Revision 245 of 1979 Laxmi Narain V/s. The State of Haryana decided on 25/03/1981, where, precisely the same question arose for consideration, namely, "whether after the passing of an award against an accused by the arbitrator under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act criminal proceedings could be initiated and continued against him for an act on his part which gave rise not only to civil liability, but also criminal liability. "In dealing with this matter, the Bench observed:-

"The Civil liability of an accused who misapporpriates an individuals property or the property of an institution like the Co-operative Society etc. is based upon the right of such individual or institution be reimbursed by such person to the extent of the misappropriated amount, while his criminal liability springs from the fact that the society at large is interested in seeing that the individuals constituting the society do not deviate from the right conduct and thus law envisages imposition of punishment, physical or otherwise, to deter such persons and others from doing so in future. It is for this reason that the State, which represents the society, takes upon itself the role of a prosecutor. Even when an individual upon whom the crime had been committed refrains from prosecuting the accused and even when he petitions that the accused should not be prosecuted, the State is not only not debarred from prosecuting the accused, but it is in law duty-bound to initiate the criminal proceedings and punish the accused for the crime."

4. In holding so reference was specifically, made to Janak Rajs case (supra) which was distinguished on facts with the observation that it had not been held there that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the accused after an award had been made against him, by the arbitrator.

5. Be that as it may, in the subsequent rulings of this Court, Janak Rajs case (supra) appears to have been construed to imply that once a matter has been referred to the arbitrator u/ S. 55 of the Act, criminal, proceedings on the same cause of action were barred. This view was taken in Harbhagwan Das; Bant Singh Hakam Singh and Kashmira. Singh cases (supra). Janak Rajs case (supra) being specifically mentioned as the judicial precedent in support of this view. The matter of material significance to note here is that the judgment of the Division Bench in Laxmi Narains case (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Hon ble Judges dealing wi