RAJPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Criminal Misc. Applns. Nos. 306/m, 903/m, 944/m, 946/m, 959/m, 969/m, 1017/m, 1910/m and 1912/m, all of 1977. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties agree that common questions of law and fact arise in all these petitions which may be considered and disposed of together.

(2.) THE common features in these petitions Under Section 482, Cr. PC praying for the quashing of the First Information Report, charge-sheets and other proceedings in each case, are that some Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Societies had appointed certain Village Cooperative Societies as Distributors for the sale of fertilizer. The petitioners in these cases had been appointed as Salesmen by the respective Village Cooperative Societies for facilitating the sale of fertilizer to the farmers. The only differentiating feature of one case is that the petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 944/m of 1977, namely, Jagtar Singh was the Secretary of the Village Coperative Society, while the petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 959/ M of 1977, i. e. , Jaswant Singh is the father of Jagtar Singh aforesaid. This Jaswant Singh was the Salesman of the same Village Cooperative Society. The First Information Report in these two cases is common and the allegation of criminal misappropriation has been made against both father and the son. It is alleged in all the petitions that the petitioners had been appointed as Salesmen of the various Societies after they had entered into an agreement with the Society prescribing the terms regarding the commission to be received by the Salesmen. In some cases, the petitioners had also arranged for sureties who executed surety bonds pledging their property in favour of the Society as a safeguard for realisation of the amount found due from the Salesmen. In all these agreements, it was also provided that the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, or his succeasor-in-office would be an Arbitrator to decide disputes arising between the parties. It appears that large amounts became outstanding against the various petitioners who had not passed on the sale proceeds of the fertilizer to the Village Cooperative Society or the Marketing Society, with the result that the matter was referred to Arbitrator and in all these cases award for various amounts were issued against the petitioners. It is needless to give the details of the amounts found due from tiem in each case, but it would suffice to say that the amount in every case is to the tune of several thousands and in some cases over one lac. The highest liability is against the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 903/m of 1977, which is Rs. 1,48,424. 69 paise.

(3.) The criminal liability of the individual, however, continues to subsist. The argument that the petitioners in all these cases had accepted their liability to pay the amounts found due against each one of them and hence the recovery can be made only by means of civil process and not by criminal prosecution, is also of no avail. If the argument is taken to its logical end, a thief after committing a theft of money, may admit having committed the theft and then claim immunity from criminal prosecution by asserting that the money stolen by him may be recovered only by civil process. Surely, this is not envisaged by law. The learned Counsel in the same context referred to the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, wherein it is provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the business of a Cooperative Society arises between the Society and its agent or employee, such a dispute is to be referred to the Registrar for arbitration. There is no controversy on the point that the cases of the petitioners were referred for arbitration to the Registrar and in all these cases awards were made for the amounts found due from them. Irrespective of this fact, the criminal liability of the petitioners is not ousted. In all the cases, the allegation is that the petitioners had misappropriated the entire amounts of the sale proceeds of the fertilizer sold by them to the farmers. It is not a question of a dispute in regard to payment of their commission. Section 55 of the Act does not, therefore, debar criminal prosecution. 5. In the next leg of his arguments, it is urged that recourse to criminal law was not justifiable merely with the purpose of pressurising payment of money. The contents of the First Information Report filed in these cases have been read out, wherein it is mentioned that the Salesmen had failed to deposit the amounts due from them in spite of being told to do so several times. A request was, therefore, made for registering cases Under Section 406/409, I. P. C, against them and for investigation into the matter. It is also mentioned that the investigation be started against the petitioners "so that the amount in question may be recovered. " The mere phraseology used in the First Information Report is not so material. What is important is the purport and substance of the allegations. The First Information Report is only meant for the purpose of setting into motion the machinery of law for investigation with a view to take proper action against an offender found guilty of commission of an offence. It would naturally be the anxiety of the department to recover the huge amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioners and the mere fact that an indication in regard to this anxiety is made in the First Information Report would not necessarily lead to, the conclusion that it is a mere civil liability and the report has been launched only with a view to pressurise the petitioners. In fact, it is possible to advance this argument practically in every case of this nature. In any case, it would not provide sufficient justification to quash the criminal proceedings. It would be for the Court which is seized of the case to see if really the petitioners are guilty of an offence and not for this Court to decide the matter at this initial stage. There is, thus, no occasion to quash the proceedings in all these cases.