RAMARAO & ANR. versus NARAYAN & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 185 · Decided: 20-12-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
G 
RAMARAO & ANR. 
v. 
NARAYAN & ANR. 
December 20, 1968 
(J. C. SHAH AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) 
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, s. 
95-Nominee 
of 
Registrar under section whether a court within the meaning of s. 195 of 
Code of Criminal Procedure-Sanction of such court whether required 
for prosecution in respect of offences under ss. 465 and 411 J.P.C. com~ 
mitted in proceedings before it-Said offences under I.P.C. whether fall 
within description of offences under s. 146(p) 
of Mc.harashtra Act-
Sanction of Registrar for pros.ecution whether necessarv. 
The Nagpur District Land Development Bank Ltd. was registered as 
a society under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. There 
was dispute as to whether one 'M' had been elected as a member of the 
Bank at a meeting of the Board of Directors. 
The Registrar of Cooperaw 
tive Societies referred the dispute to a nominee. Certain documents in-
cluding the 
minutes book of the 
Bank were 
produced before 
the 
nominee. 
'M' filed a complaint against the President and Secretary of the 
Bank charging them with offences under ss. 465 and 471 I.P.C. for having 
forged the minute book and producing it before the nominee. The two 
accused raised an objection that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to take 
cognizance of the complaint without the pre:vious sanction of the Regis-
trar of Cooperative Societies under s. 148 ( 3) of the Maharashtra Coope-
rative Bank Act, 1960. The trial magistrate rejected the contention. The 
order was confirmed by the Court of Session and the High Court of 
Bombay. 
In appeal before this Court the following contentions were 
urged on behalf of the accused-appellants: (i) That the nominee of the 
Registrdl" appointed under s. 95 of the. Maharashtra Cooperative Societies 
Act, 1960, was a 'court' within the meaning of s. 195 of the Code of 
Crimiqal Procedure and a complaint for offences under ss. 465 and 4 71 
Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed by a party to any 
proceeding in respect of the document produced or given in evidence in 
. such proceeding, cannot be entertained except on a complaint in writing 
of such court, or of a court to which it is subordinate, (ii) That the in-
gredients of the offence of forgery punishable under s. 465 LP. Code 
and of the offence under s. 146(p) of the Maharashtra 
Cooperative 
Societies Act are the same, and the general provision is on that account 
pro tanto repealed, and in any event in view of s. 148(3) of the Maha-
rashtra Act no prosecution could be initi'ated in respect of the offences 
charged otherwise than with the sanction of the Registrar. 
HELD : (i) The nominee exercising power to make an awa'rd under 
s. 96 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, derives his 
authority n.ot from the statute but from investment by the Registrar in his 
individual discretion. The power invested is liable to be suspended and 
may be withdrawn. He is 
not entrusted the 
judicial power of 
the 
H 
State : he is merely an arbitrator authorised within the limits of the 
power conferred to ~djudicate upo.n the dispute referred to him. 
He is 
not a court within the meaning of s. 195 of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure. [198 D-E] 
7SUp.CJ/69-l 3 
18 6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 3 S.C.R. 
Thqdi Subbi Reddi v. Emperor, A.LR. 1930 Mad. 869,. Velayuda 
A 
Mudah & Anr. v. Co-operative Rural Credit Society & Ors., A.I.R. 1934 
Mad. 40, Y. Mahabaleswarappa v. M. Gopalaswami Mudaliar, 
A.I.R. 
1935 Mad. 673, Nand Lal Ganguli v. Khetra Mohan Ghose,, I.L.R. 45 
Cal. 585:. Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1963) 2 S.C.R. 
850: Li:Jt• Harldas v. State of MaharG<htra & Anr., [1964) 6 S.C.R. 100; 
Shn Vmndar .Kumar Saty?wadi v. State of Punjt>b, [1955) 2 S.C.R. 1013, 
Bra1nandan Smha v. Jyoti Narain., [1955) 2 S.C.R. 955, Hari Pandurang 
B 
& A nr. v. Secretary of &ate for India in Council I.L.R. 27 Born. 424, 
Thakur Jugal K1shore Sinha y. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. 
[1967) 3 S.C.R. 163 and Malabar Hill Co-operative .Housing Society Ltd. 
Ilombay v. K. L. Gauba & Ors. A.LR. 1964 Born. 147, considered. 
(ii) Section 146(p) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 
1960 and ss. 463 and 464 I.P.C. are two distinct offences which are 
capable of being committed with different intentions by· different sets of 
C 
persons and it could not be contemplated that the 
Legislature of the 
State of Maharashtra intended to repeal pro 
tanto the p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.