BABU RAM VARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been summoned under Section 409, Indian Panel Code, on a charge-sheet submitted by the police. It is urged that such prosecution is barred by Section 105(2) at the Cooperative Societies Act What has been laid dawn in that section is that under the D.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, any prosecution without the previous sanction of the Registrar shall not be launched. The offences and penalties are enumerated and contained in Sections 103 and 104 of that Act. The offence under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, is not mentioned in any a those two sections. It is urged that Section 103(u) mentions that if an officer, employee etc. of a Cooperative Society fraudulently destroys, mutilates, alters, falsifies any book or abets the same or makes false entry etc., shall, as per clause (2)(b) of that section, be liable to imprisonment far two years. It is urged that falsification of accounts may imply the embezzlement itself. Relying upon the case of State v Shaik Dadan1 it is urged that falsification of accounts etc. leads to an inference of criminal breach of trust or misappropriation; hence if trial for falsification of accounts etc. requires a sanction, then the trial for offence under Section 409 Indian Penal Code would also require a sanction. I have considered that argument and I do not find any farce in it. Section 409, Indian Penal Code, is a more serious and independent offence. The legislature in its wisdom has not barred the trial of that offence providing far sanction, nor it has mentioned it as one of the offences under Section 105 of the D.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. In fact neither any person can be tried under that act far the offence under Section 409 Indian Penal Code. Nor can be convicted or sentenced under that Act, because under Section 103 of the Act it hasnt been made an offence as such. The general rule of cognizance will prevail and the trial under Section 409, Indian Panel Code is ant barred and no sanction is required far the same.

(2.) The application is summarily rejected.

(3.) I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of this case, but I am simply laying down that the trial of offence under Section 40.9, Indian Penal Code is not barred under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Application rejected. 1. AIR. 1958 A.P. 29.