VED PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed for quashing the impugned orders dated August 2,1977, of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, and March 24,1981, of the Joint Secretary (Co -Operation).

(2.) THE petitioner was Cashier in the Tigrana Panna Brahmin Co -operative Agricultural Service Society, Tigrana, district Bhiwani. The petitioner borrowed an Amount of Rs. 33,200/ - from the Central Co -operative Bank, Bhiwani, for disbursement of the same to its members. But according to the Society, the petitioner disbursed the amount of Rs. 4500/ - only to the members and misappropriated the remaining amount of Rs. 28,700/ -. Therefore, a dispute was raised before the Assistant Registrar (who is also the Arbitrator) under Section 55 of the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, 1961. The Assistant Registrar vide his order directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 71,360/ - to the Society. Against the order of the Assistant Registrar, the petitioner filed an appear before the Joint, Secretary (Cooperation), Haryana, Chandigarh, who dismissed the same. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the orders of the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies and Joint Secretary (Co -operation). The Assistant Registrar in his order has stated that the members of the Society, namely, Pahlad Ram Sarup and Ram Krishan gave their statements that they have not signed on pronotes and that their signatures/thumb impressions have been made bogus. From these statements, the Assistant Registrar came to the conclusion that the petitioner misutilised/embezzelled the amount. The Assistant Registrar also referred to the statement of the petitioner said to have been recorded by the police during investigation of the criminal case in which he has admitted that he has misused the said amount himself. I am of the opinion that both the grounds on which the Assistant Registrar placed reliance cannot be relied upon for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner misappropriate/embezzled the amount. The Statement of Pahlad, Ram Saroop and Ram Krishan only go to show that no loan had been advanced to them by the petitioner and that they had not signed the pronotes. Their statement do not go to show that the petitioner misappropriated any amount. The statement of the petitioner said to have been recorded by the police under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be looked into as the same is not signed by the petitioner. This statement is not admissible in evidence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order of the Assistant Registrar is based on evidence and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The Appellant Authority failed to see that the petitioner obtained the certified copy of the award of the Assistant Registrar only on December 28, 1977, and the appeal filed on January 17, 1978. Therefore, the Appellate Authority is not correct in dismissing the appeal as barred by time.