HUKAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Hukam Chand petition are that he was working as Secretary in the Bondli Cooperative Agricultural Services Society Ltd., Bondli, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. On 6th March, 1977 the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, lodged a First Information Report in the Police Station against the petitioner on the allegation that he had embezzled Rs. 40600.13 belonging to the above-named Society. On 7th March, 1977 i.e. after the registration of the case, the matter was referred to the arbitrator under Section 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short the Act). The arbitrator gave his award against the petitioner on 13th September, 1978. The petitioner appealed against that award and the same was dismissed on 7th April, 1980.

(2.) IN the meantime, after investigation of the case under the said that First Information Report, chargesheet was presented against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala, on 13th July, 1979. Charges were framed against him on 3rd December, 1979. The petitioner filed an application somewhere in January, 1983 before the trial Court for dropping the criminal proceedings on the ground that in view of the award which was like a decree and was executable, no criminal offence was made out against him. That application as dismissed by the trial Court on 9th May, 1983.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited Janak Raj v. The State of Punjab, 1979 C.L.R. (Pb. and Har.) 236. The facts of that case are entirely different. In that case an award had been given against the defaulter about the amount alleged to have been embezzled by him. Thereafter the defaulter filed a criminal complaint against some persons connected with the Cooperative Society concerned alleging that the accused persons conspired and obtained some documents from him after making misrepresentations and practising fraud upon him. One of the accused filed an application in the trial Court for dropping that criminal complaint filed by the defaulter. The trial Court who recommended it for quashing the criminal proceedings. In the reference order it was remarked :-