Statutory nominee is not a court under section 195 CrPC, and IPC forgery prosecution remains maintainable

A Registrar's nominee under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was held not to be a "court" for section 195 CrPC merely because the nominee could summon witnesses, compel documents and follow a civil-like procedure; the statutory scheme was closer to arbitration, so a complaint for forgery-related offences under the IPC was not confined to that authority. Section 146(p) of the Act was also treated as creating a distinct offence and not as repealing or barring prosecution for forgery and use of forged documents under the IPC, because the two sets of offences were different and could coexist. Prosecution under the IPC therefore remained maintainable without prior sanction.

---

---

Issues: (i) 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 that a complaint for offences under sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code relating to documents produced in that proceeding could be maintained only on a complaint by that authority. (ii) Whether section 146(p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 renders the prosecution for offences under sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code unavailable or barred without previous sanction of the Registrar.

Issue (i): 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 that a complaint for offences under sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code relating to documents produced in that proceeding could be maintained only on a complaint by that authority.

Analysis: The dispute mechanism under the Act showed that the Registrar could refer matters to his nominee, withdraw them, or reassign them; the nominee's jurisdiction arose from such appointment and control, and the decision was called an award. Although the nominee had powers to summon witnesses, compel documents, and follow a procedure akin to civil proceedings, the obligation to act judicially and fairly did not by itself make the nominee a court. The statutory scheme was treated as resembling statutory arbitration rather than an independent court exercising the judicial power of the State.

Conclusion: The Registrar's nominee was not a court within section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue (ii): Whether section 146(p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 renders the prosecution for offences under sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code unavailable or barred without previous sanction of the Registrar.

Analysis: The offence created by section 146(p) was not identical to the offences of forgery and use of forged documents under the Indian Penal Code. The two enactments dealt with distinct offences, capable of being committed with different ingredients and by different classes of persons. Mere overlap in some factual situations did not amount to repeal of the Penal Code provisions, and there was no repugnancy making the two enactments incapable of co-existence. The Act therefore did not exclude prosecution under the Penal Code, and the question of pro tanto repeal was rejected.

Conclusion: Section 146(p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 did not bar the prosecution and previous sanction of the Registrar was not necessary.

Final Conclusion: The objections to the criminal complaint failed, and the conviction-related jurisdictional challenge was rejected, leaving the prosecution maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tribunal or nominee is not a "court" for section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely because it acts judicially and follows civil-court-like procedure; and overlapping conduct under a special statute does not displace prosecution under the Indian Penal Code unless the later enactment clearly creates repugnancy or shows an intention to repeal the Penal Code offence.

---