STATE OF MYSORE Vs. NANAPUR SANNA HANNUR SAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in this appeal was the president of a Co-operative Society called 'The Tape Weavers' Co-operative Society', Tekkalakota and upon information laid by the said Society he was prosecuted and tried by the First Class Magistrate, Bellary on three charges viz. that he having received in respect of the amounts due to the said society, a sum of Rs. 23/- from one Hussainamma, a sum of Rs. 50/- from the Hussain one Sab and another sum of Rs. 50/- from the mother of one Nabi Saheb, misappropriated the same to his own use.

(2.) Originally the complaint appears to have been made both under Section 406 as well as under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code but subsequently the charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was given up on the ground that the respondent who was only the President of the Co-operative Society could not be described as a public servant. Hence the trial proceeded only for an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) During the course of the trial an agreement purporting to have been entered into between the respondent and the 3 persons mentioned above who had made payments due by them to the Co-operative Society into the hands of which the trail magistrate granted permission under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal procedure to compound the offence. The application for the grant of permission was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that according to the table attached to sub-section (2) of Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the person who could compromise the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is the owner of the property in respect of which the breach of trust has been committed. The contention of the Public Prosecutor was that the three sums of money in respect of which this alleged breach of trust had been committed by the respondent were the property of the Co-operative Society. The counsel for the respondent urged before the trial magistrate that the three debtors of the Co-operative Society who had made these payments continued to be the owners of that money until the said amounts are actually entered in the accounts of the Co-operative Society as having been received for the benefit of the said Society. The trial Magistrate accepted the latter contention and granted permission to compound the offence. The present appeal is by the State in which this view taken by the Magistrate as to the ownership of the money has been attacked as unsound.