GURMUKH SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Cri. Misc. No. 14500-M of 1998 whereby Gurmukh Singh and Angrej Singh have prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No. 73 dated 30.7.94 registered under Sections 406/409/420/120-B, Indian Penal Code of PS Lopoke, district Amritsar.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that Lakhwinder Singh ex-secretary of Boparai Kalan Cooperative Agriculture Service Society enrolled bogus members in the society and thus defrauded the department and embezzled an amount to the tune of Rs. 6,63,623.58. Allegations against the petitioners are that they were never members of the society. They by getting fictitious membership of the society obtained loan from the society. Lakhwinder Singh managed loan waivement from the government to the tune of Rs. 90,000/- benefit of which was derived by said Lakhwinder Singh who defrauded the government to the tune of Rs. 90,000/-. Accused-petitioners were also fictitious members of the society. They are not residing in the area of the society. They raised loan by misrepresenting the society.

(3.) As per the record of the society, Lakhwinder Singh enrolled 41 persons as fictitious members of the society. Angrej Singh took loan of Rs. 11,954.25 on 23.2.83 and this amount was waived to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. Similarly, Gurmukh Singh took loan of Rs. 21,987.70 on 28.8.92. If loan was obtained from the society by fictitious enrolment of members, that is something which can be brought to the fore by documentary evidence. Transactions are very old. Case was registered in July 1994. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that arbitration proceedings are going on under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act. If arbitration proceedings are going on under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, their liability will be fixed and resort to criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of the court. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on the other hand, submitted that arbitration proceedings are as between the society and the members and not between the society and bogus members. Suffice it to say, arbitration proceedings can go on even if the petitioners were the members of the society without being residents in the jurisdiction of the society. Keeping in view that the FIR was registered as far back as in July, 1994 and also that the investigation in such cases is sometimes a long drawn process, I feel that anticipatory bail should be allowed to the petitioners. So, it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be admitted to bail by the investigating officer. Petitioners shall join the investigation and shall keep joining the investigation as per the direction of the investigating officer.