# RAMARAO & ANR v. NARAYAN & ANR

- **Citation:** [1969] 3 S.C.R. 185
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-12-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1967
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ramarao-anr-v-narayan-anr-4852
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, s.
95-Nominee
of
Registrar under section whether a court within the meaning of s. 195 of
Code of Criminal Procedure-Sanction of such court whether required
for prosecution in respect of offences under ss. 465 and 411 J.P.C. com~
mitted in proceedings before it-Said offences under I.P.C. whether fall
within description of offences under s. 146(p)
of Mc.harashtra ActSanction of Registrar for pros.ecution whether necessarv.
The Nagpur District Land Development Bank Ltd. was registered as
a society under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. There
was dispute as to whether one 'M' had been elected as a member of the
Bank at a meeting of the Board of Directors.
The Registrar of Cooperaw
tive Societies referred the dispute to a nominee. Certain documents including the
minutes book of the
Bank were
produced before
the
nominee.
'M' filed a complaint against the President and Secretary of the
Bank charging them with offences under ss. 465 and 471 I.P.C. for having
forged the minute book and producing it before the nominee. The two
accused raised an objection that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the complaint without the pre:vious sanction of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under s. 148 ( 3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Bank Act, 1960. The trial magistrate rejected the contention. The
order was confirmed by the Court of Session and the High Court of
Bombay.
In appeal before this Court the following contentions were
urged on behalf of the accused-appellants: (i) That the nominee of the
Registrdl" appointed under s. 95 of the. Maharashtra Cooperative Societies
Act, 1960, was a 'court' within the meaning of s. 195 of the Code of
Crimiqal Procedure and a complaint for offences under ss. 465 and 4 71
Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed by a party to any
proceeding in respect of the document produced or given in evidence in
. such proceeding, cannot be entertained except on a complaint in writing
of such court, or of a court to which it is subordinate, (ii) That the ingredients of the offence of forgery punishable under s. 465 LP. Code
and of the offence under s. 146(p) of the Maharashtra
Cooperative
Societies Act are the same, and the general provision is on that account
pro tanto repealed, and in any event in view of s. 148(3) of the Maharashtra Act no prosecution could be initi'ated in respect of the offences
charged otherwise than with the sanction of the Registrar.
HELD : (i) The nominee exercising power to make an awa'rd under
s. 96 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, derives his
authority n.ot from the statute but from investment by the Registrar in his
individual discretion. The power invested is liable to be suspended and
may be withdrawn. He is
not entrusted the
judicial power of
the
H
State : he is merely an arbitrator authorised within the limits of the
power conferred to ~djudicate upo.n the dispute referred to him.
He is
not a court within the meaning of s. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [198 D-E]
7SUp.CJ/69-l 3
18 6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
Thqdi Subbi Reddi v. Emperor, A.LR. 1930 Mad. 869,. Velayuda
A
Mudah & Anr. v. Co-operative Rural Credit Society & Ors., A.I.R. 1934
Mad. 40, Y. Mahabaleswarappa v. M. Gopalaswami Mudaliar,
A.I.R.
1935 Mad. 673, Nand Lal Ganguli v. Khetra Mohan Ghose,, I.L.R. 45
Cal. 585:. Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1963) 2 S.C.R.
850: Li:Jt• Harldas v. State of MaharG<htra & Anr., [1964) 6 S.C.R. 100;
Shn Vmndar .Kumar Saty?wadi v. State of Punjt>b, [1955) 2 S.C.R. 1013,
Bra1nandan Smha v. Jyoti Narain., [1955) 2 S.C.R. 955, Hari Pandurang
B
& A nr. v. Secretary of &ate for India in Council I.L.R. 27 Born. 424,
Thakur Jugal K1shore Sinha y. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
[1967) 3 S.C.R. 163 and Malabar Hill Co-operative .Housing Society Ltd.
Ilombay v. K. L. Gauba & Ors. A.LR. 1964 Born. 147, considered.
(ii) Section 146(p) of the Maharashtr

## Text

_Characters 0–39,917 of 46,467. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39917 for what follows._

A
B
c
0
E
G
RAMARAO & ANR.
v.
NARAYAN & ANR.
December 20, 1968
(J. C. SHAH AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.)
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, s.
95-Nominee
of
Registrar under section whether a court within the meaning of s. 195 of
Code of Criminal Procedure-Sanction of such court whether required
for prosecution in respect of offences under ss. 465 and 411 J.P.C. com~
mitted in proceedings before it-Said offences under I.P.C. whether fall
within description of offences under s. 146(p)
of Mc.harashtra ActSanction of Registrar for pros.ecution whether necessarv.
The Nagpur District Land Development Bank Ltd. was registered as
a society under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. There
was dispute as to whether one 'M' had been elected as a member of the
Bank at a meeting of the Board of Directors.
The Registrar of Cooperaw
tive Societies referred the dispute to a nominee. Certain documents including the
minutes book of the
Bank were
produced before
the
nominee.
'M' filed a complaint against the President and Secretary of the
Bank charging them with offences under ss. 465 and 471 I.P.C. for having
forged the minute book and producing it before the nominee. The two
accused raised an objection that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the complaint without the pre:vious sanction of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under s. 148 ( 3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Bank Act, 1960. The trial magistrate rejected the contention. The
order was confirmed by the Court of Session and the High Court of
Bombay.
In appeal before this Court the following contentions were
urged on behalf of the accused-appellants: (i) That the nominee of the
Registrdl" appointed under s. 95 of the. Maharashtra Cooperative Societies
Act, 1960, was a 'court' within the meaning of s. 195 of the Code of
Crimiqal Procedure and a complaint for offences under ss. 465 and 4 71
Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed by a party to any
proceeding in respect of the document produced or given in evidence in
. such proceeding, cannot be entertained except on a complaint in writing
of such court, or of a court to which it is subordinate, (ii) That the ingredients of the offence of forgery punishable under s. 465 LP. Code
and of the offence under s. 146(p) of the Maharashtra
Cooperative
Societies Act are the same, and the general provision is on that account
pro tanto repealed, and in any event in view of s. 148(3) of the Maharashtra Act no prosecution could be initi'ated in respect of the offences
charged otherwise than with the sanction of the Registrar.
HELD : (i) The nominee exercising power to make an awa'rd under
s. 96 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, derives his
authority n.ot from the statute but from investment by the Registrar in his
individual discretion. The power invested is liable to be suspended and
may be withdrawn. He is
not entrusted the
judicial power of
the
H
State : he is merely an arbitrator authorised within the limits of the
power conferred to ~djudicate upo.n the dispute referred to him.
He is
not a court within the meaning of s. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [198 D-E]
7SUp.CJ/69-l 3
18 6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
Thqdi Subbi Reddi v. Emperor, A.LR. 1930 Mad. 869,. Velayuda
A
Mudah & Anr. v. Co-operative Rural Credit Society & Ors., A.I.R. 1934
Mad. 40, Y. Mahabaleswarappa v. M. Gopalaswami Mudaliar,
A.I.R.
1935 Mad. 673, Nand Lal Ganguli v. Khetra Mohan Ghose,, I.L.R. 45
Cal. 585:. Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1963) 2 S.C.R.
850: Li:Jt• Harldas v. State of MaharG<htra & Anr., [1964) 6 S.C.R. 100;
Shn Vmndar .Kumar Saty?wadi v. State of Punjt>b, [1955) 2 S.C.R. 1013,
Bra1nandan Smha v. Jyoti Narain., [1955) 2 S.C.R. 955, Hari Pandurang
B
& A nr. v. Secretary of &ate for India in Council I.L.R. 27 Born. 424,
Thakur Jugal K1shore Sinha y. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
[1967) 3 S.C.R. 163 and Malabar Hill Co-operative .Housing Society Ltd.
Ilombay v. K. L. Gauba & Ors. A.LR. 1964 Born. 147, considered.
(ii) Section 146(p) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,
1960 and ss. 463 and 464 I.P.C. are two distinct offences which are
capable of being committed with different intentions by· different sets of
C
persons and it could not be contemplated that the
Legislature of the
State of Maharashtra intended to repeal pro
tanto the provisions
of
s. 465 l.P.C. by enactment of s. 146 of the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act.
The prosecution in the present case not being under the
Maharashtra Act sanction of the Registrar under s. 148 thereof was not
necessary, [201 H-202 A]
Om Prakash Gupta v. Stcte of Uttar Pradesh, [1957) S.C.R. 423 and
T. S. Bal/iah v. T. S. Rengachari, [1969) 3 S.C.R. 65, applied.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
51 of 1967.
Appeal by special leave from the· judgment and order dated
October 3, 1966 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in
Criminal Revision Application No. 168 of 1966.
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwa/a, G. V. Kalikar, S. K. Dhingra
and M. S. Gupta, for the appellants.
W. S. Bar/ingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent
No. 1.
H. R. Khanna and S. P. Na,yar, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J.
The Nagpur District Land Development Bank L!<f.
is registered as a society under the
Mah~!ashtra Co-op~ran~
Societies Act 1960.
One Narayan Ta:nba1t Murkute applied for
membership of the Bank as a "non-borrowing_ membe~"· . At a
meeting of the Bank held on June 30, 1964, the application of
Murkute and of 94 others were granted and they were enrolled as
members. But in the list of members entitled to take part in the
General Meeting dated June 30, 1964 the names of Murkute and
others were :not included.
Murkute and others then applied to the Registrar Co-operative
Societies for an order declaring that they were entitled to participate in the election of office-bearers and for an
inj!ln~tion
restraining the President and the Secretary from holdmg the
D
E
F
G
H
I
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAMARAO V. NARAYAN (Shah, J.)
18 7
annual Genera[ Meeting. The Registrar referred the dispute for
adjudication under s. 93 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, to H. V. Kulkarni, his nominee.
The nominee
decided the dispute on May 7, 1965 and held that Murkute and
other applicants were members of the Bank. In the proceeding
before the nominee certain documents including the minutes
book of the Bank were produced. It is claimed by Murkute that
those books were fabricated by the President and the Secretary
with a view to make it appear that Murkute and other persons
were never elected members of the Bank.
On August 7, 1965, Murkute filed a complaint in the Court
of the Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Nagpur, charging
the
President and Secretary of the Bank with committing offences
under ss. 465 and 471 LP. Code. it was alleged in the complaint
that the two accused had dishonestly and fraudulently introduced
a clause in Resolution No. 3 appearing in the minutes book with
the intention of causing it to be believed that the clause was part
of the original Resolution passed by the Board of Directors in the
meeting held on June 30, 1964, whereas it was k.nown to them
that at that meeting no such clause was passed.
The two accused raised an objection that the Magistrate had
no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint without the
previous sanction of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under
s. 148 ( 3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960.
The Trial Magistrate rejected the
contention.
The order was
confirmed by the Court of Session and the High Court of Bombay.
In this Court counsel for the accused raised two contentions-
( I) that the nominee of the Registrar appointed under s. 95 of
the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, was a "court"
within the meaning of s. 195 Code of Criminal Procedure, and
a complaint for offences under ss. 465 and 471 I.P. Code alleged
to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in respect
of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding,
cannot be entertained except on a complaint in writing of such
court, or o.f a court to which it is subordinate; and
(2)
that
offences charged in the complaint fell within the description of the
offence
under s. l 46(p)
of the
Maharashtra
Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960, and without the sanction of the Registrar the
complaint was not maintainable.
Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure insofar as it is relevant provides :
"(!) No Court shall take cognizance-
( a)
(b)
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(!969] 2 S.C.R.
( c) of a,ny offence described in section 463 or
punishable under section 471 . . . when such offence
is alleg~d t<? have been committed by a party to any
proceedmg m any Court in respect of a documqnt
produced or given in evidence
in such proceeding,
except on the complaint in writing of such court, or of
some other Court to which such Court is subordinate.
( 2) In clauses ( b) and ( c) of sub-section (1 ) , the
term "Court" includes a Civil, Revenue or Criminal
Court, but does not include a Registrar or Sub-Registrar
under the Indian Registration Act, 1877."
Murkute complained that the President and the Secretary of
the Bank who were parties to the proceeding before the nominee
of the Registrar had committed offences under ss. 465 & 471
I.P. Code in respect of documents produced or given iitl evidence
at the trial. If the Registrar's nominee is a Court within the
meaning of s. 195 Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate could
not take cognizance except on the complaint in writing by the
Registrar's nominee or of some court to which he was subordinate. To determine whether the Registrar's nominee is a court,
it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, relating to the
functions of the nominee and the powers with which he is
invested, counsel for the appellants urges that by the Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Act the power of the Civil Court to entertain disputes with regard to certain matters concerning cooperative societies is expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of
the Civil Court, and the Registrar or his nominee is alone competent to determine those questions; thereby the Registrar and his
nominee are invested with the judicial power of the State and they
are on that account "courts" within the meaning of s. 195 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 2 ( 2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act,
1960,
defines
"arbitrator"
as
me~ "a
person appointed under this Act to decide disputes referred to
him by the Registrar and includes the Registrar's nominee or
board of nominees." Section 91 and the following sections which
occur in Ch. IX relate to disputes and arbitration. By s. 91, insofar as it is material, it is provided :
" ( 1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, any dispute
touching the constitution, election of the office bearers,
conduct of general meetings, management or business
of a society shall be referred by any of the parties to the
dispute, . . . . . to the Registrar, if both the
parties .hereto are one or other of the following :-
A
B
c
I
D
E
r
G
H
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
RAMARAO V. NARAYAN (Shah, J.)
(a)
(b) a member, past member or a person claiming
through a member, past member or a deceased member
of a society, or a society which is a member of the
society.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2) When any question arises whether for the purpose of the foregoing sub-section, a matter referred to
for decision is a dispute or •n<>t, the question shall be
considered by the Registrar, whose decision shall be
final.
( 3) Save as otherwise provided under sub-section
(3) of section 93 no Court shall have jurisdiction to
entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any
dispute referred to in sub-section (1 ) . "
Section 93. provides:
"(l) If the Registrar is satisfied that any matter
referred to him or brought to his notice is a dispute
within the meaning of section 91, the Registrar shall,
subject to the rules, decide the dispute himself, or refer
it for disposal to a nominee, or a board of nominees,
appointed by the Registrar.
( 2) Where any dispute is referred under the foregoing sub-section, for decision to the Registrar's nominee or board of nominees, the Registrar may at any
time, for reasons to be recorded in writing withdraw
such dispute from his nominee or board of nominees,
and may· decide the dispute himself, or refer it again for
decision to any other nominee, or board of nominees,
appointed by him.
( 3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section
91 the Registrar may, if he thinks fit, suspend proceedings in regard to any dispute, if the question at issue
between a society and a claimant or between different
claimants, is one involving complicated questions of law
and fact, until the question has been tried by a regular
suit instituted by one of the parties or by the society.
If any such suit is not instituted within two months
from the Registrar's order suspending proceedings, the
Registrar shall take action as is provided in sub-section
(1)."
18 9
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
Section 94 provides for the pr?cedur: of settlement of disputes
and power of the Registrar, his nommee or the board of nominees. It provides, insofar as it is material :
"(I) The Registrar, or his nominee or board
of
no~inees, hearing a dispute under the last preceding
sect10n shall hear the dispute in the mainner prescribed,
and shall have power to summon and en.force attendance of witnesses including the parties interested or any
of them and to compel them to give evidence on oath,
affirmation or affidavit, and to compel the production of
documents by the same means and as far as possible in
the same manner, as is provided i,D: the case of a Civil
Court by the Code of Civil Procedure, .1908.
( 2) Except with the permission of the Registrar or
his nominee or board of nominees, as the case may be,
no party shall be represented at the hearing of a dispute
by a legal practitioner."
Sub-section ( 3) of s. 94 authorises the Registrar, his nominee or
the board of nominees to joi,n or substitute new parties. Section
95 authorises the Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees
to pass an order o.f attachment and other interlocutory orders.
Section 96 provides :
"When a dispute is
referred to arbitration the
Registrar or his nominee or board of nomitttees
may,
after giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties to
the dispute to be heard, make an award on the dispute,
on the expenses incurred by the parties to the dispute
in connection with the proceedings,
a.nd
fees
and
expenses payable to the Registrar or his nominee or.
as the case may be, board of nominees. Such an award
shall not be invalid merely on the ground that it was
made after the expiry of the period fixed for _ileciding
the dispute by the Registrar a.nd shall, subject to appeal
or review of revision, be binding on the parties to the
dispute."
Section 97 provides :
"Any party aggrieved by any decision of the
Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees under
the last preceding section, or an order passed
under
section 95 may, .
. appeal to the Tribunal."
Section 98 provides that every order passed by the Registrar ~r
his nominee or board of nominees or in appeal therefrom shall, if
not carried out, on a
certificate signed by the Registrar, be
deemed to be a decree of a civil court, and shall be executed in
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
....
B
c
E
F
G
H
RAMARAO V. NARAYAN (Shah, J.)
191
the same manner as a decree of such court or be executed according to the law and under the rules for the time being in force for
the recovery of arrears of land revenue. By s. 99 a private
transfer or delivery of, or encumbrance or charge on, property
made or created after the issue of the certificate of the Registrar
under s. 98 shall be null ·and void as against the society on whose
application the certificate was issued.
Jurisdiction of the Civil Court by s. 91 (3) to entertain a
suit in respect of any dispute referred to in sub-s. (1) of s. 91 is
expressly excluded and the dispute is
required by law to be
referred to the Registrar or his nominee. Against the decision of
the Registrar's nominee an appeal lies under s. 97 and the order
made for payment of money is enforceable as a decree of the
Civil Court. The Registrar or his· nominee called upon to decide
the dispute are bound to hear it in the manner prescribed and
:they have power to summon and enforce attend~ce of witnesses
and to compel them to give evidence on oath, affirmation or
affidavit and to compel production of documents. The effect of
these provisions, according to counsel for the appellants, is that
the judicial power of the State to deal with ·and dispose of disputes
'Of a civil nature which fall within the description of s. 91 ( 1) is
Vested in the Registrar's nominee and he is on that account made
a "court" within the normal connotation of the term.
Section 195 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure e,n.acts
that t.he term "court" includes a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court,
but does not include a Registrar or Sub-Registrar under the
Indian Registration Act, 1877. The expression "court"
is
not
restricted to courts, Civil, Revenue or Criminal; it includes other
tribu.nals. The expression "court" is not defined in the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
Under s. 3 of the Indian Evid~ce Act
"Court" is defined as including "all Judges and Magistrates, and
all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take
evidence". But this definition is devised for the purpose of the
Evidence Act and will ·oot necessarily apply to the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
The expression "Court of Justice" is defined
in the Indian Penal Code by s. 20 as denoting "a Judge who is
empowered by law to act judidally as a body, when such Judge
or body of Judges is acting judicially". That again is not a definitiQn of the expression "Court" as used in the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The expression "Court" in ordinary parlance is a
generic expression and in the context in which it occurs may
meai;i a "body or organization" invested with power, authority or
d1gmty. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edin., Vol. 9, Art.
809 at p. 342 it is stated :
"Originally the term "court" meant, among other
meanings, the Sovereign's place; it has
acquired the
192
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 3 S.C.R,
meaning of the place where justice is admWsterep. and,
further, has come to mean the persons who exercise
judicial functions under authority derived either immediately or mediately from the Sovereign. Ali tribunals,
however, are not courts, in the sense in which the
term is here employed, namely, to denote such tribunals
as exercise jurisdiction over persons by reas.ons of the
sanction of the Jaw, and not merely by reason of
voluntary submission to their jurisdiction Thus, arbitrators, committees of clubs, and the like, although they
may be tribunals exercisil)g judicial functions, are not
"courts" in this sense of that term. Qn the other hand,
a tribunal may be a court "in the strict sense of the
term although the chief part of its duties is no!_ judicial.
Parliament is a court. Its duties are mainly dWiberative
and legislative : the judicial duties are only part of its
functions."
In Art. 810 it is stated :
"ln determining whether a tribwial is
a judicial
body the facts that it has been appointe4 by a nonjudicial authonty, that it has no power to administer
an oath, that the chairman has a casting vote, and that
third parties have power to intervene are immaterial,
especially if the statute setting it up prescribes a
penalty for making false statements; elements to
be
considered are ( 1) the requirement for a public hearing, subject to a power to exclude the public in a proper case, and (2 )' a provision that a member of the
tribunal shall not take part in any decisi~ in which he
is personally interested, or unless he has been presentthroughout the proceedings.
A tribunal. is not necessarily a court in the strict
sense of exercising judicial power because ( 1 ) it gives
a final decision; (2) hears witnesses on oath; (3) two
or more contending parties appear before it between
whom it has to decide; ( 4) it gives decisions which
effect the rights of subject_s.; ( 5) there is an appeal to a
court; and ( 6) it is a body to which a matter is referred
by another body. Many bodies are not courts, .<tlthough
they have to decide questions, and in so doing have to
act judicially, in the sense that the proceedings must
be conducted with faimess and impartiality, such as the
former assessment committees, the former court of referees which was -constituted under .the Unemployment
Insurance Acts, the be11ehers of the Inns of Court when
considering the conduct of one of their lllembers, the
A
B
c
D
ll
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAMARAO V. NARAYAN (Shah, J.)
Disciplinary Committee of the
General Medical
Council
when considering
questions
affecting
the
conduct of a medical man, a trade union when exercising disciplinary jurisdiction over its members, or the
chiei officer of a force exercising discipline over
members of the force."
193
A body required to act judicially in the sense that its
proceedings must be conducted with fairness and impartiality may not
therefore necessarily be regarded as a court.
Counsel for the appellants however invited our attention to a
number of decisions in support of his contention that wherever
there is a dispute which is required to be resolved by a body
invested with power by statute and the body has to act judicially,
it must be regarded as a court within the meaning of s. 195 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel asserted that every
quasi-judicial authority is a court within the meaning of s. 195(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contention is tnconsis-
~nt with a large body of authority of this Court to which we
will presently refer.
By s. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is enacted
that certain offences amollllting to contempt of la¢ul authority
of public servants i.e. offences fall.iing under ss. 172 to 188 I.P.
Code, offences against public justice under ss.
193, 194, 195,
196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228, when
such offences are alleged to have been committed in or in relation
to, any proceeding in any Court, and offences described in s. 463
or punishable under ss. 471, 475 or 476, when such offences are
alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in
any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence
in such proceeding, cannot be taken cognizance of by any court,
except in the first class of cases on a complaint in writing of the
public servant concerned, and tn the second and third class of
cases on the complaint in writing of such Court or some other
Court to which it is subordinate.
An offence ordinarily signifies a public wrong : it is an act or
omission which is a crime against society : it may therefore be
brought to the notice of the Court by any person, even if he is
·not personally aggrieved by the act or omission. To that rule there
are certain exceptions which are specified in ss.
195, 196, 197,
198, 198A of the Code of Crimin~! Procedure and other special
statutes. Authority of courts to entertain complaints in respect of
the offences so specified is barred in view of the special nature of
the off~nce which vitally affect individuals only or public bodies
and in the larger interest of society it is deemed expedient to
exempt them from the general rule,
194
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
The nominee of the Registrar act\ng under s. 96 performs the
functions substantially of an arbitrat0r to whom
a dispute is
refer.red for adjudication. The Registrar may appoint a single
nommee or a board of nommees and may at any time, for reasons
to be recorded in writing, withdraw such dispute from the nominee or board of nominees, and may decide the dispute himself,
or refer it again for decision to another nominee, or board of
nominees, appointed by him. Under sub-s. (3) of s. 93 it is open
to the Registrar to suspend proceedings in regard to any dispute,
if the question at issue between a society and a claimant or between different claimants, is one involving complicated questions
of law or fact. The jurisdiction of the nominee or board of nominees arises by reason not of investment by statute, but by appointment made by the Registrar who exercises control over the proceeding. The nominee therefore derives his authority from his
appointment by the Registrar : the Registrar is entitled to withdraw
his authority; and the Registrar may fix the time within which a
dispute shall be disposed of : his adjudication is again called an
award. The nominee is even entitled to make a provision for the
expenses payable to the Registrar or to himself.
It is true that the
procedure of the nominee is assimilated to the procedure followed
in the trial of a Civil proceeding. The nominee has lhe power to
summon witnesses, to compel them to produce documents and he
is required to bear the dispute in the manner prescribed by the
Code of Civil Procedure. Thereby he is required to act judicially
i.e. fairly and impartially : but the obligation to act judicial!y will
not necessarily make him a court within the meaning of s. 195 of
·the Code. The position of a 1nominee of the Registrar is analogous
to that of an arbitrator designated under a statutory arbitration to
which the provisions of s. 47 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, apply.
The authorities to which our attention was invited by counsel
for the appellants may now be considered. It may be .sufficient
here to observe that the tests laid down bv this Court in certain
case~ to be presently noticed make many of the cases relied u,pon
of doubtful authority. In Thadi Subbi Reddi v. Emperor(') it
was held by a single Judge of the Madras High Court that the
Registrar before whom a Co-operative Societv files its suit, or its
claim for enforcing a bond, is a "Court" within the meaning of s.
A
B
c
D
E
F
195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the Registrar to
G
whom a dispute touching a debt due to a society bv a member is .
referred has power to administer oaths, to require the attendance
of al! oarties concerned and of witnesses, and to require the production of all books and documents relating to the matter in dispute, and the Registrar is required to give a decision in ~riti!1g,
and when it is given the decision may be en.forced on appltcatmn
to the Civil Court having jurisdiction as if it were a decree of the
Court.
---------
(1) A.LR. 1930 Mad. 869.
Jl
B
c
'D
E
F
RAMARAO v. NARAYAN (Shah, J.)
195
In Ve/ayuda Mudaii and Another v.
Co-operative Rural
Credit Society and Others(') a single Judge of the Madras High
Court, following the judgment in Thadi Subbi Reddi's case,(2)
observed that a Registrar of Co-operative Societies acing under
r. 14 of the rules framed under the Co-operative Societies Act is
a Court, and the rule of /is pendehs applied to the proceeding
before the Registrar.
In Y. Mahabaleswarappa v. M. Gopalasami Muda/iar(') a
Division Bench of the High Court of Madras held that an Election
Commissioner appointed to decide a dispute with regard to municipal elections is a court within the meaning of s. 195 o.f the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The Court in that case held that the
Election Commissioner is a special tribunal to whom the power
to make an inquiry relating to the rights of a civil nature was
entrusted by statute and he is required to deal with the matter in
accordance ,with the procedure of a court. The procedure followed
by the Election Commissioner was held to be similar to the procedure of the Court since he was required to
gi,ve a definitive
judgment upon the matter in hand and this power was not conferred,. merely by extending the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The Court in that case observed at p. 677 :
" .... we have to look, not to the source of tribunal's authority, or to any peculiarity· in
the method
adopted of creating it, (though it is undoubtedly a consideration that it derives its powers mediately or immediately from the Crown) but to the general character
of its powers and activities. If it has power to regulate
legal rights by the delivery of definitive judgments, and
to enforce its orders by legal sanctions, and if its procedure is judicial in character, in such matters as
the
taking of evidence and the administration of the oath,
then it is a "Court"."
The assumptiQn made that an election dispute is a dispute relating to civil rights is, however, not correct, nor is it true to say
that because there is an obligation to deal with the matter fairly
and impartially and the procedure is assimilated to the procedure
for the trial of civil disputes, it necessarily makes a body invested
with the power to decide the dispute, a "Court"
·
In Nand Lal Ganguli v.
Khetra Mohan
Ghose(') it was
observed that the word "Court" in s. 195
Code of
Criminal
Procedure has a wider meaning than "Court of Justice"
under
s. 20 of the Penal Code and includes a· tnbunal entitled to deal
with a particular matter 'and authorised to receive evidence bear-
(1) A.l.R. 1934 Mad. 40.
(2) A.LR. 1930 Mad.1f9.
(3) A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 673.
(4.) I.LR. 45 Cal. 585.
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 3 S.C.R ..
ing there~n in order to enable it to arrive at a detennination upon
._
the question. On that account a Tribunal constituted by the
Calcutta Improvement Act (Benga) Act V of 1911) as amended
by the Calcutta Improvement (Appeals) Act 18 ot 1911 is a
"Court" within the meaning of s. 195 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
But the test which appealed to the Madras and the Calcutta
High Courts in determirung whether a tribunal was a "Court" has
not been accepted by this Court in Jagannath Prasad v. The State
of Uttar Pradesh(1). It was held in that case that the Sales Tax
Officer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act is not a "Court" within
the meaning of s. 195 of the Code of CriminaJ Procedure, and a
complaint for the prosecution of persons committing offence under
s. 471 J.P. Code may lie without a complaint by the Sales Tax
Officer. In the view of the Court though the Sales Tax Officer was
required to perform certain quasi-judicial functions and , to act
fairly and impartially, he was not a part ot the judiciary : he was
merely an instrumentality of the State for purposes of assessment
and collection of tax. The nature of the functions of a Sales Tax
Officer and the manner prescribed for the performance showed
that he could not be equated with a Court.
Attention of course must be directed to Lalji Haridas v. State
of Maharashtra and Another(') where this Court took the view
that an Income-tax Officer exercising powers under s. 37(1), (2)
and ( 3) was exercising powers in a judicial proceeding for the
purpose ot ss. 193, 196 and 228 Indian Pena.I Code. The Court,
however, expressly observed that it was not necessary to decide
the general question whether the Income-tax Officer was
a
"Court", for s. 37(4) of the Income"tax Act makes the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer judicial proceedings for the
purpose of s. 193 Indian Penal Code and accordingly the proceeding before him must be treated as a proceeding in a Court for the
purpose of s. 195 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Two other decisions may be referred to.
Ln Shri Virindar
Kumar Satyawadi v. The State of Punjab(') this Court held that
a Returning Officer acting under ss. 33 and 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and deciding on the validity or
otherwise of a nomination paper is not a "Court" within the
,meaning of ss. 195(1) (b), 476. 476-B of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. In Brajnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain(') this Court
held that the Commissioner appointed under the Public Servants
(Inquiries) Act 37 of 1850 is not a "Court" within the meaning
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. This Court has therefore
definitely taken the view that a mere duty to act judicially either
(I) 11963] 2 S.C.R. 850.
(2) [196416 S.C.R. 700.
(3) (1955] 2 S.C.R 1013.
(4) (1955] 2 S.C.R. 955.
a.
c
D
E
F'
G.
I
A
11
c
D
F
G
H
RAMARAO V. NARAYAN (Shah, J.)
197
expressly imposed or arising by necessary implication of the
nature of the duties required to be performed, does not of itself
make a tribunal-judicial or quasi-judicial-a "Court" within the
meaning oi s. 195 Code of Criminal Procedure.
The judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Hari Pandurang and Another v. Secretary of State for l11dia in Council(')
in which the Court held that a tribunal created under the City of
Bombay Improvement Act, 1898, upon which powers were conferred to determine compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act was not a "Court" and was therefore free from the
control and supervision of the High Court.
The decision of this Court in Thakur Jugal Kishote Sinha v.
Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Another(') on
which strong reliance was placed by counsel does
not in our
judgment assist him. The appellant in that case in an appeal before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, alleged that the
Assistant Registrar in deciding a matter had discriminated against
him and had adopted "double standards". In proceedings under
the Contempt of Courts Act the High Court of Patna held the
appellant guilty. An appeal was brought to this Court and it was
held that the appellant was rightly convicted, The Court observed
that the Assista,m Reg'istrar was functioning as a court in deciding the dispute in question. His adjudication was not based upon
a private reference nor was his decision arrived at in a summary
manner, but with all the parapharnalia of a court and the powers
of an ordinary civil court of the land. But the question in that case
was not whether the Registrar is a "Court" within the meaning of
s. 195(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is necessary also
to observe that the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, were not substantially the same as
the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960, which fall to be considered in this case. It may be pointed
out that Mitter, J. speaking for the Court observed :
"It must be borne in mind that we do not propose
to lay down that all Registrars ot all Co-operative
Societies in the different States are "courts" for the purpose of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. Our decision
is expressly limited to the Registrar and the Assistant
Registrar like the one before us governed by the Bihar
and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act."
Counsel for the appellants contended that this Court has
dissented from the decision in Malabar Hill Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd., Bombay v. K. L. Gauba and Others(') on which the
judgment under appeal in this case is founded. In K. L. Gauba's
(!) l.L.R. 27Bom.424.
(2) [1967].
3 SC.R. 163.
(3) A.l.R. 1964 Born. 147.
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
case (1) the High Court of Bombay has held that a nominee of a
Registrar to whom a dispute is sent for decision under s. 54 ( 1)
of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 is not a court
within the meaning of s. 3 ( 1) of the Contempt' oi Courts Act,
1952. It is claimed that this decision has been expressly overruled
by this Court in
Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha's case('). The
assumption made by counsel for the appellants that the decision of
the Bombay High Court in Malabar Hills Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd.'s case(1) was overruled is, however,
not correct.
This Court set out the facts in some detail and observed that the
decision of the Bombay High Court that the proceedings before
the nominee of the Registrar under the Bombay Act were merely
in the nature of arbitration proceedings did not compel them to
hold that the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies under
the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, was not a
"Court". It was expressly pointed out that in the Bombay case the
matter was referred to the Assistant Registrar as a nominee of the
Registrar who had to act as an arbitrator and to make an award.
After carefully considering the powers
conferred and the
source of authority of the nbminee, we have no doubt that the
nominee exercising power to make an award under s. 96 of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, derives his authority not from the statute but from investment by the Registrar in
his individual discretion. The power so invested is liable to be
suspended and may be withdrawn. He is therefore not entrusted
the judicial power of the State : he is merely an arbitrator authorised within the limits of the power conferred to adjudicate upon
the dispute referred to him.
The plea that the complaint was not maintainable without
B
c
D
E
the sanction of the Registrar has no substance. By s. 146 of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, insofar as it .is material,
F
it is provided :
"It shall be an offeiace under this Act if-
(p) any officer or member of a society destroys.
mutilates, tampers with, or otherwise alters, falsifies or
G
secretes or is privy
to the
destruction, mutilation,
alteration, falsification or secreting of any books, papers
or securities or makes, or is privy to the making of any
false or fraudulent entry in
any register,
book of
account or document belonging to the society.~
. By the Explanation it is enacted that "for the purpose of this
H
section, an officer or a member referred to in this sectiOll shall
(I) A.LR. 1964 Born, 147.
(21 [196.7J. l S.C.R . .163.
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
RAMARAO v. NARAYAN (Shah, J.)
199
include past officer and past member, as the case may be". By
s. 148 ( 3) it is provided :
"No prosecution under this Act shall be lodged, except with the previous sanction of the State Governm~t
in the case of an offence under clause ( b) of sectton
146 and of the Registrar in the case of any other
offence under
this Act. Such sanction shall not be
given, except after hearing the party concerned by an
officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government by a general or special order."
It was urged that the ingredients of the offence of forgery punishable under s. 465 I.P. Code and of the offence uqder s. 146(p)
are in substance the same, and the general provision is on that
account pro tanto repealed, and in any event in view of the provision of s. 148(3) no prosecution may be i~itiated in .respect of
those offences otherwise than with the prev10us sancuon of the
Registrar.· Section 14 7 which prescribes punishments for offences
under s. 146, by cl. (p) provides:
"Every society, officer or past officer, membe~ or
past member, employee or past employee of a society,
or any other person, who commits an offence under
section 146 shall, on conviction, be punished,-
( p) if it is an offqnce under clause {p) of that
section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to two years, or with fine, or with both;"
Under s. J46(p) an offence may be committed by-(1) an officer or member or by a past officer or past member; (2) such officer or member or past officer or past member must have destroyed, mutilated, tampered with, or otherwise altered, falsified or
secreted; (3) or must have been privy
to
the
destruction,
mutilation, aJteration, falsification or secreting; ( 4) or must have
made or he privy to the making of any false or fraudulent entry
in ~ny register, book of account or document belonging to the
society.
The clause does not make intention an ingredient of the
offence.
Again a person who is privy to the destruction, multilation, alteration, falsification or secreting of books or making
any false or fraudulent entry in any register, book of account or
docume~t belonging to the society is made punishable.
Even
destruct10n of books of account is penalised under s. 146. Section
465 I.P.