DEOBRAT SHASTRI Vs. RANG BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for quashing or, in the alternative, for transfer of a criminal prosecution pending against the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1, Deobrat Shastri, is said to be the Chief Editor of a daily Hindi newspaper called 'Navarastra'. Petitioner no. 2, Sumangal Prakash, is the Editor of that paper which is printed and published at Patna. In the Dak Edition of that paper dated 30th November 1949, the following news was published:

(2.) On the publication of this news, the opposite party, who is the manager of the Central Co-operative Bank, Begusarai, the Bank being the sole Government Stockist at the place, filed a petition of complaint before the Subclivisional Magistrate of Begusarai against the petitioners along with three other persons on 1st April 1950, and on the said complaint the Sub-divisional Magistrate issued summonses against the petitioners. It may be stated that the three other persons against whom summonses had been issued are (i) Malchand Agrawal, Chief Editor of another paper 'Vishwamitra', (2) Harishchandra Agrawal, also an Editor of the same paper 'Viehwamitra', this paper having also its head office at Patna, and (3) Jagat Narain Lal Agrawal, a resident of Begusarai who is alleged to be a correspondent of both these papers 'Navarastra' and 'Vishwamitra'.

(3.) Mr. Nageshwar Prasad who has appeared on behalf of the petitioners has urged various points in asking this Court to quash the proceedings. He contends that the petition of complaint has not been filed on behalf of "a person aggrieved", and therefore, no Court should take cognizance of an offence under Sections 500 and 501, falling under chap XXI, Penal Code, in the absence of such a complaint. Admittedly the Government stockist of rice in Beguearai is the Central Cooperative Bank of Beguaarai of which the complainant-opposite party is the manager. The affairs of the Bank are also under the supervision of a Board of Directors presided over by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of the place. Mr. Nageshwar Prasad, therefore, submits that if the the Bank stood aggrieved by the publication in question, then the complaint should have been either by the Board of Directors or by the President of the Board. The question of distribution of the rice stocked by the Bank as the Government stockist affects the persons who dictate the policy of the Bank, and therefore, it is primarily they who should have lodged a complaint, if at all, because they come within the definition of a person aggrieved According to his contention, the manager is merely an executive authority who has no choice in the matter but be only carries out the biddings of the board of management. On behalf of the complainant opposite party it has been contended on the other hand, that the manager is primarily the person aggrieved. Under Section 2 (9), Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, the manager functions as a statutory person. It is not only that he carries on the biddings of the Board presided over by the President but he is also a person who is primarily concerned with the day to day management of the Bank, and it is he who is, therefore, responsible for any laches or mismanagement of its affairs. Therefore, there does not appear to me to be prima facie any reason to bold that the manager is not a person aggrieved as contemplated by a 198, Criminal P. C., In any case this is a question of fact to be decided on the evidence in the case and also upon the rules and procedure relating to the management of the Bank and the distribution of the stock of rice which the Bank holds as a Government stockist. It cannot, therefore, be a sufficient ground for quashing the proceedings at this stage.