Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Nominee not 'court' under Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under IPC vs. Co-operative Societies Act.</h1> 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 ... - 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
