SURYANARAYAN TRIPATHY Vs. KAMALANATHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore, setting aside an order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawaraagpur, taking cognizance of an offence under Section 166, I. P. C. against the opposite parties.

(2.) The petitioner is a practising advocate of Nawarangpur. He filed a complaint petition before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate alleging the folio wing'facts. He applied for membership of the Large Sized Multi Purpose Co-operative Society of Nawarangpur on 20-3-1985 by complying with all formalities. After expiry of thirty days, he did not receive any communication rejecting his application. So, by operation of the provisions of Section 116 (2) of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), he was deemed to have been a member of the said Society with effect from the date following the date of expiration of the said period of thirty days. Some time thereafter the Society issued a programme of election of the Board of Directors which was to take place on 31-5-1985. In the said programme, all dates for scrutiny, filing of objections, hearing of objections, publication of the final list of voters, filing of the nominations and scrutiny thereof, etc., were specified. The petitioner found that his name was absent in the preliminary voters list published on 8-5 1985. Therefore, he filed an objection dated 13-5-1985 as per the date in the programme before the Election Officer who was a Sub-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Election Officer after due consideration of his objection directed the Managing Director of the Society to include the petitioner's name in the voters list. On 14-5-1985 the petitioner went to verify if his name was included in the final list or not, but found that his name had not been included. He came to know that the Election Officer received a protest petition at 8.30 p.m. on 13-5-1985 and at 10.00 p. m. behind the back of the petitioner and without giving any opportunity to him modified his earlier order by virtue of which the petitioner's name was directed to be excluded from the voters list. Ths petitioner felt aggrieved and thought that the opposite parties misconducted themselves to cause injury to him and so he filed the complaint-petition under Section 166, I. P. C.

(3.) After perusal of the facts stated in the complaint-petition and the accompanying documents, but without making an enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C., the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of an offence under Section 166,1. P. C. against the Election Officer and under Section 166 read with Section 109, 1. P. C. against the Managing Director and the President of the Society, all of whom are opposite parties. The opposite parties moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge for setting aside the order of cognizance. After hearing, the learned Judge found that there was no sanction for prosecution of tho opposite parties under Section 116 (2) of the Act and so he set aside the order of cognizance.