HARBANS SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE proposition of law which arises for consideration from the present petition under Section 561 -A, Criminal Procedure Code, is that when a dispute arising in terms of Section 55 of the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, 1961, (Punjab Act 25 of 1961), hereinafter referred to as the Act, also gave rise to criminal liability and where such a dispute is referred to the arbitrator in terms of the abovesaid provisions, then whether in regard to such a dispute the jurisdiction of the criminal Court is barred.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the appreciation of the abovesaid proposition, and which stand admitted on all hands, are that the Petitioner was Manager of the Fazilka Co -operative Marketing Society Limited from 13th April, 1959 to 8th April, 1970, when the said Society terminated his services and on 23rd June, 1970 passed a resolution, annexure 'B' to the petition, to the effect that the dispute between Harbans Singh (Petitioner before me) and the said Society relating to the payment of Rs. 43,161.07 p. as the embezzled amount and Rs. 24,353.42 p. as the loan amount be referred to the arbitrator. After the matter was so referred to the arbitrator by the Society, in pursuance of the said resolution, the Registrar on 19th August, 1970. wrote three separate letters to the Superintendent of Police, Ferozepore, pertaining to three amounts of Rs. 10,000. Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 2,000.36 p. embezzled by the Petitioner and desired therein the Superintendent of Police to register a case under Sections 409 and 466, Indian Penal Code, against the abovesaid Harbans Singh. In pursuance of the aforesaid letters, on 1st September, 1970, F.I.R No. 64 was recorded and a case under the above -mentioned sections of the Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station, Fazilka City. On 218th September, 1970, the Petitioner presented the present petition under Section 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the competency of the police to register and investigate the case in question.

(3.) MR . K.S. Kwatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has contended that a dispute pertaining to the embezzlement of the funds of a Co -operative Society by its employees falls within the category of disputes which Sub -section (1) of Section 55 of the Act makes it obligatory to be referred to the arbitration of the Registrar of the Co -operative Societies. Having so pin -pointed the nature of the dispute, the counsel then argued that Sub -section (1) of Section 55 of the Act precludes every Court to entertain any suit or other proceedings in regard to such a dispute. In support of his submission that the dispute in question is the kind of dispute which is being made referable to the Registrar of the Co -operative Societies, the learned Counsel placed Teliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court reported in Vidhya Dhar Sharma v. The Presidents Press, 1985 PXJL 566.