1968 (12) TMI 102 - SC - Indian Laws

Nominee not 'court' under Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under IPC vs. Co-operative Societies Act.

The court held that the nominee of the Registrar under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, is not considered a 'court' under Section 195 of ... Scope of the expression 'Court' in section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - distinction between a statutory nominee/nominee-arbitrator and a court for purposes of criminal cognizance - quasi-judicial functions do not ipso facto convert a tribunal into a 'court' under section 195 CrPC - statutory arbitration by Registrar's nominee under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act - relationship between special penal provision for societies and general offences under the Indian Penal Code - no implied repeal of penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code by section 146(p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies ActScope of the expression 'Court' in section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - quasi-judicial functions do not ipso facto convert a tribunal into a 'court' under section 195 CrPC - statutory arbitration by Registrar's nominee under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act - Whether the Registrar's nominee under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, is a 'court' within the meaning of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to bar criminal cognizance except on complaint of such court. - HELD THAT: - The nominee appointed by the Registrar to decide disputes under Ch. IX of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act functions as an arbitrator to whom disputes are referred by the Registrar and derives authority from that appointment. The Registrar retains supervisory control, may withdraw or re refer disputes, and may suspend proceedings; the nominee's procedure is assimilated to civil trial procedure and he must act judicially, but those features alone do not convert the nominee into a 'court' for the purposes of s.195 CrPC. Authorities and principle distinguish tribunals required to act judicially from 'courts' in the strict statutory sense; the nominee's powers and the appointive and supervisory relationship with the Registrar mark it as analogous to a statutory arbitrator rather than a court within s.195. Consequently the bar in s.195(1)(c) CrPC, which restricts cognizance of offences concerning documents produced in proceedings of a 'court', does not apply so as to prevent the Magistrate from taking cognizance of the complaint in the absence of a written complaint by the Registrar's nominee.The Registrar's nominee is not a 'court' within the meaning of section 195 CrPC; the Magistrate could take cognizance of the complaint without a written complaint from the nominee.Relationship between special penal provision for societies and general offences under the Indian Penal Code - no implied repeal of penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code by section 146(p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act - Whether offences punishable under section 146(p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act operate to exclude or repeal offences under sections 463, 464 or 465 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of acts such as falsification or alteration of society documents. - HELD THAT: - Section 146(p) punishes destruction, mutilation, alteration, falsification or secreting of society documents by officers or members and is therefore a distinct statutory offence directed at the internal discipline and records of societies. Offences under ss.463-465 IPC require the specific mens rea and elements set out in those provisions (making a false document, dishonest or fraudulent intention etc.). The two enactments are capable of operating concurrently; there is no necessary repugnancy or inconsistency that would compel a finding of implied repeal of the IPC provisions by the State Act. Differences in scope and maximum punishment further indicate distinct offences. Earlier decisions and principles governing cumulative operation of general and special statutes support treating the provisions as separate and co existent.Section 146(p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act does not repeal or oust the offences under ss.463-465 (and related provisions) of the Indian Penal Code; both sets of offences remain available where their respective ingredients are satisfied.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed: the Registrar's nominee under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is not a 'court' for the purposes of section 195 CrPC and the special penal provision in section 146(p) of the State Act does not supplant or repeal the corresponding offences under the Indian Penal Code. Issues Involved:1. Whether the nominee of the Registrar appointed under Section 95 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, is a 'court' within the meaning of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Whether the offences charged in the complaint fall within the description of the offence under Section 146(p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and if so, whether the complaint is maintainable without the sanction of the Registrar.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Nominee of the Registrar as a 'Court' under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The appellants contended that the nominee of the Registrar under Section 95 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, should be considered a 'court' within the meaning of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section stipulates that no court shall take cognizance of certain offences, including those under Sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, when such offences are alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, except on a complaint in writing of such court.The court examined the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, including Sections 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, and 97, which outline the powers and functions of the Registrar and his nominee. These sections reveal that the nominee acts substantially as an arbitrator and derives authority from the Registrar, who can withdraw such authority at any time. The nominee's adjudication is termed an award, and the procedure followed is akin to that of a civil proceeding.The court concluded that merely because the nominee is required to act judicially and follow procedures similar to those in civil courts, it does not make the nominee a 'court' within the meaning of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The nominee's function is analogous to that of a statutory arbitrator, and the judicial power exercised is not sufficient to categorize the nominee as a court.2. Offences under Section 146(p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the Requirement of Registrar's Sanction:The appellants argued that the offences charged in the complaint fell within the description of the offence under Section 146(p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. This section penalizes the destruction, mutilation, alteration, falsification, or secreting of any register, book of account, or document belonging to the society by its officers or members. The appellants contended that without the sanction of the Registrar, the complaint was not maintainable.The court analyzed the provisions of Section 146(p) and compared them with Sections 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code, which deal with forgery and the making of false documents. Section 146(p) does not require the specific intentions mentioned in Sections 463 and 464 IPC and applies to officers or members of the society. The court noted that while certain acts might fall under both sections, they are distinct offences with different intentions and applicable to different sets of persons.The court held that the enactment of Section 146(p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act did not imply a pro tanto repeal of Sections 463 and 464 IPC. The offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act are cumulative, and the legislature did not intend to repeal the IPC provisions by enacting Section 146(p). Consequently, the requirement of the Registrar's sanction under Section 148(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act did not apply to offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC.Conclusion:Both contentions raised by the appellants were rejected. The nominee of the Registrar is not a 'court' within the meaning of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC are distinct from those under Section 146(p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The appeal was dismissed.