Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – s.81(5B) – The High Court was of the view that since the provisions of the 1960 Act are special, the provisions of s.81(5B) would preclude the registration of an FIR at the behest of a person, such as the appellant, who is a shareholder of the co-operative society – Propriety of: Held: S.81 of the 1960 Act casts a public duty on the auditor and the Registrar to audit co-operative societies – A statutory obligation is cast on the auditor and the Registrar because they are the first persons to acquire knowledge about the financial irregularities in a co-operative society – S.81(5B) of the Act casts a positive obligation on the auditor or the Registrar to file an FIR – S.81(5B) demands accountability and vigilance from the auditor and the Registrar in performance of their public duty – It does not use any negative expression to prohibit persons other than the auditor or the Registrar from registering an FIR – Therefore, it would be contrary to basic principles of statutory construction to conclude that s.81(5B) debars persons other than the auditor or the Registrar from filing an FIR. [Paras 20 and 24]
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – s.81(5B) – FIR registered by appellant-share holder against respondents for offences punishable u/ss.420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468 and 471 r/w. s.34 of IPC – FIR quashed by High Court relying on s.81(5B) of the 1960 Act – Propriety of:
Held: The High Court held that s.81(5B) contains special provisions for the submission of a special report and the obtaining of the permission of the Registrar before the lodging of an FIR – It held that these provisions would be rendered otiose if the general provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 were to apply – In the instant circumstances, the High Court has erred in quashing the FIR which was lodged by the appellant – S.81(5B) cannot be interpreted to mean that any other person who comes to know about the financial irregularity on the basis of the audit report is debarred from reporting the irregularity to the police – It is correct that the FIR adverted to the audit which was conducted in respect of the affairs of the co-operative society – However, once the criminal law is set into motion, it is the duty of the police to investigate into the alleged offence – This process cannot be interdicted by relying upon the provisions of sub-section (5B) of s. 81 which cast a duty on the Registrar/auditor to lodge a first information report – Impugned Judgment and order of the High Court set aside. [Paras 7, 26 and 29]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Lalita Kumari v. Government of U P (2014) 2 SCC 1 : [2013] 14 SCR 713; A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak (1984) 2 SCC 500 : [1984] 2 SCR 914 – followed.
Jamiruddin Ansari v. CBI (2009) 6 SCC 316 : [2009] 7 SCR 759; Jeewan Kumar Raut v. CBI (2009) 7 SCC 526 : [2009] 10 SCR 272; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR
259 – distinguished.
State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (1994) 3 SCC 299 : [1994] 2 SCR 208; Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan (1994) 3 SCC 440 : [1994] 1 SCR 445; Mirza Iqbal Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 3 SCC 516; T.T Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181 : [2001] 3 SCR 942; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 288 : [1987] 1 SCR 702; Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat (2017) 9 SCC 340 : [2017] 8 SCR 682; Rangku Dutta v. State of Assam (2011) 6 SCC 358 : [2011] 8 SCR 639; Union of India v. Popular Construction (2001) 8 SCC 470 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 619 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.