MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two miscellaneous petitions arise out of the order dated 2-11-92, passed by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Cases (Additional Sessions Judge), Jodhpur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the two revision petitions (Criminal Revision Petition No. 153/92 Mohan Lal v. The State and Criminal Revision Petition No. 154 of 1992 (Mohan Lal v. The State) filed by the petitioner. As the controversy involved in both the miscellaneous petitions is the same, therefore, both these miscellaneous petitions are disposed of by this common Order.

(2.) Petitioner Mohan Lal was working with "the Jodhpur Central Co-operative Bank" (in brief, 'the Bank') as the Branch Manager. While he was posted at the Osian Branch of the bank during the period of June 1980 to 31/05/1982, an FIR was registered against the petitioner for committing criminal breach of trust and cheating the bank by altering the valu able securities under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. While working as the Branch Manager at the Paota Branch (Jodhpur) of the Bank during the period 4-6 82 to 31-7-82, an FIR was registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur, for committing criminal breach of trust by him with an intention to defraud the bank and he mutilated and falsified the accounts of the bank. After necessary investigations in both the aforesaid cases, the police presented challans against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cogni zance against the accused-petitioner and thereafter framed the charges in both the cases. Aggrieved with the order framing the charges, the petitioner ap proached this Court and the criminal revisions, filed by the petitioner, challenging the orders framing the charges, were dismissed by this Court. The learned Magistrate thereafter proceeded with recording of the statements of the witnesses. The petitioner there after moved applications in both these cases for dropping the criminal proceedings on the ground that the proceedings were taken by the Department under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act for the repayment of the amounts regarding which the petitioner is alleged to have committed criminal breach of trust and, therefore, the criminal proceedings with respect to these very items cannot continue and the continuation thereof will amount to abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, the criminal proceedings against him should be dropped. The learned Chief Judicial Mag istrate, by his order dated 1-11-1991, rejected both these applications filed in the aforesaid two criminal cases. The petitioner, aggrieved with the order dated 1-11-91, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Mag istrate, Jodhpur, rejecting his applications in both the cases, preferred revision petitions and both the revision petitions were decided by the learned Special Judge, E. C. Act Cases (Additional Sessions Judge), Jodhpur, by his order dated 2-11-92, who dismissed the revision petitions filed by the peti tioner. It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred these two miscellaneous petitions chal lenging the order passed by the Court below. Crimi nal Miscellaneous Petition No. 37 of 1993 relates to the FIR lodged against the petitioner at Police Sta tion, Mahamandir, Jodhpur, while Criminal Miscel laneous Petition No. 38 of 1993 relates to the FIR lodged against the petitioner at Police Station, Osian.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that where an accused is charged with the offence of criminal breach of trust with regard to certain items, and the question of civil liability with respect to those items has been determined by the competent Court, the criminal proceedings must therefore be dropped as its continuation will be an abuse of the process of the Court. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over: Rajendra Kumar v. The State of West Bengal, 1969 Cri LJ 243, Kaviraj Basudevananda v. The State, 1970 Cri LJ 632, Shyam Sunder Banka v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1983 (2) Crimes 109, Mohan Lal v. The Jodhpur Central Co-operative Bank, (S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1007 of 1985 - decided on 1-3-90), Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. Sitamarhi Cen tral Co-operative Bank Ltd, AIR 1967 SC 1494 and Sohan Lal v. The State of Rajasthan, 1991 Cr LR (Raj) 343. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Bank, on the other hand, have supported the order passed by the Court below and submitted that the enquiry envisaged under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act (in short, 'the Act') is in the nature of a departmental enquiry by the Regis trar, Co-operative Societies, to order the defaulter to contribute by way of compensation for the losses caused to the bank and does not determine any civil right of the parties. Even otherwise, their further contention is that the enquiry under Section 74 of the Act is an administrative enquiry and not in the nature of criminal proceedings before a competent Court and the departmental enquiry, under the Rules, does not amount to prosecution and punishment for aw offence and, therefore, both - the criminal pro ceedings as well as the administrative proceedings and, also, the civil proceedings - for the recovery of the amount, can go simultaneously and the order passed by the learned Court below does not require any interference. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Bank has placed reliance over: S. A. Venkataraman v. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 375. The learned counsel for the Bank has, also, raised a preliminary objection that the present miscellaneous petitions are nothing but second revision petitions, which are not maintain able in view of the statutory bar put by Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 Cr. P. C. and merely by changing the nomenclature, the statutory bar cannot be over come and the miscellaneous petitions, filed by the petitioner, therefore, deserve to be dismissed on this very ground. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the bank has placed reliance over : Bishambar Lal v. The State, 1991 WLN (1) 191, and Moosa Hussein Sanghar v. The State of Gujarat, 1993 (1) JT SC : AIR 1994 SC 1479.