https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195040 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. en-us Fri, 20 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:22:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195040 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195040