BHAGIRATHI DAS AND FIVE ORS. Vs. MANINDRA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1 was the President of the Ranpur Large Sized Agricultural Co -operative Society and House Building Co -operative Society, Petitioner No. 2 was the Secretary of the said Agricultural Co -operative Society and Petitioner No. 3 was the Secretary of the said House Building Co -operative Society. Petitioners 4 to 6 are respectively the wives of Petitioners'1 to 3 Manidra Sahu (opposite party). who was a Member of the Agricultural Co -operative Society, filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Jajpur, alleging that the Petitioners at different times to the Co -operative Societies without disclosing that these were previously mortgaged and sometimes giving false descriptions of the properties and thus committed various offences under the Penal Code including one under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the averments in the complaint and the statement on oath) cognizance was taken under Section 420,

(2.) MR . Mohanti assails the view of the learned Sessions Judge as being contrary to Sections 51, 137 and 138 of the Act. To appreciate his contention it is necessary to extract the sections so far as they are relevant.

(3.) IT is, however, to be noted that the Petitioners were not prosecuted under Section 137(1)(b) because they committed graver offences. The matter did not stop at their furnishing false information. As a result of such false information being given, the Societies were induced to advance loans which they would not have advanced if the true state of affairs had been brought to their notice. The deception was possible as some of the Petitioners were President and Secretaries of the Societies. Thus the Petitioners cheated the Societies and thereby dishonestly induced the Societies to advance loans, and prima facie committed an offence under Section 429, Indian Penal Code. The offence under Section 420 includes elements which by themselves complete offences under Section 137(1)(a) and (b). The question for consideration is -Is the prosecution bound to confine itself to a complaint under Section 137(1)(0.) and (b) when a graver offence was committed under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. The answer must be in the negative When an offence of murder is committed, necessarily offence of grievous hurt is committed. It is difficult to find any force in the argument that, the prosecution should be for grievous hurt and not for murder. -The analogy applies here with full force. When the prosecution is for graver Offence, there need not be any prosecution for minor offences which are included in' the graver offence. In case of commission of an offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, no sanction is necessary. The learned Sessions Judge took the correct view. Similar matter came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in State v. Banchhanidhi : 23 C.L.T. 352 : A.I.R. 1957 Ori 165, and their Lordships took the identical view.