VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Where a matter is referred to arbitration u/ S. 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, is initiation thereafter of criminal proceedings, on the same cause of action against the person concerned, barred? Herein lies the controversy referred to a larger Bench by A.P. Chowdhri, J. noticing an apparent conflict of views on the subject in a string of judicial precedents of this Court. These being Janak Raj v. State of Punjab, 1979 Ch LR (Pb. and Hy) 236; Harbhagwan Das v. The State of Punjab (1983) 2 RCR 156 Bant Singh v. The Dulley Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. (1987) 2 RCR 435, (i) Kashmira Singh v. The State of Punjab; (1989) 1 RCJ 175 and; Criminal Misc. 429-M of 1987 Hakam Singh v. State of Punjab decided on 20/02/1987 on the one hand, where it has been held that after reference to arbitration, criminal proceedings on the same cause of action are barred, while on the other, the contrary opinion that such criminal proceedings can be taken finds expression in Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab (1972) 74 PLR 26 and Rajpal Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1977 PLR 624 (1978 Cri LJ 609).

(2.) In referring this controversy to a larger Bench, A.P. Chowdhri, J. made clear his preference for the latter view as set forth in Harbans Singh and Raj Pal Singh's cases (Supra).

(3.) The point to note at the very outset is that the matter in issue already stands settled and decided by the judgment of the Division Bench in Criminal Revision 245 of 1979 Laxmi Narain v. The State of Haryana decided on 25/03/1981, where, precisely the same question arose for consideration, namely, "whether after the passing of an award against an accused by the arbitrator under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act criminal proceedings could be initiated and continued against him for an act on his part which gave rise not only to civil liability, but also criminal liability. "In dealing with this matter, the Bench observed:-