Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jkv Multi State Credit Cooperative ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 April, 2017
M.Cr.C. No. 1061/2017
JKV Multi State Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.
and another Vs. State of M.P. and another.
13.04.2017
Shri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel, with
Shri Arpan Pawar, learned counsel, for the
applicants.
Shri Yogendra Das Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer
for the respondent/State.
They are heard at length.
1. The applicants have filed this application praying to recall the final order dated 09.12.2016 passed by this court in M.Cr.C. No. 13281/15 case- titled JKV Multi State Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. and another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector district Sidhi and another, whereby the petition filed by the applicants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been dismissed holding that:-
(i) The provisions of Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hito Ka Sarankshan Adhiniyam, 2000 (for short "the Act) are applicable to the applicant No.1, JKV Multi State Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., as it is a financial establishment as per the definition 2 (c) of the Act.
(ii) The district Collector Sidhi, being the Competent Authority of his territorial jurisdiction Sidhi as per the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Act, has power to seek information from the applicant No.1 under Section 3 (3) of the Act. As the applicant No.1 is operating in Sidhi district.
(iii) The collector Sidhi has power to direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gopad Banas Sidhi working under him to file the complaint under the Act against the applicants for violation of provisions of Sections 3 (1) and (2) punishable under Section 3(4) of the Act, while, passing an order under Section 4 of the Act.
(iv) Since the Sessions Judge Sidhi, who is the designated Special Judge under the Act, by the order dated 02.03.2015 passed under Section 8 of the Act had made the order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the Collector Sidhi absolute, the applicants could not challenge the said order of the Collector Sidhi under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(v) Since the applicants had contravened the provisions of Section 3 (1) and (2), they are liable to be prosecuted under Section 3 (4) of the Act. The said penal Section provides for punishment with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to Rs.1000/- or both. Looking to the quantum of the aforesaid punishment the case shall be tried against the applicants as a summons-case. Therefore, it is not mandatory for the respondents to attach the list of witnesses with the complaint. As per the provisions of Section 254 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(vi) Section 11 (1) of the Act provides for filing an appeal against any order passed by the designated Special court under the Act to the High Court within 30 days from the date of order. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable against the order dated 02.03.2015 and 29.06.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sidhi under the Act, qua the Special Judge designated under the Act.
(vii) The applicant No.1 has no right to accept deposit of money even from its members for want of approval and notifications in terms of Section 45-I(e) of the RBI, Act.
2. It be noted that the aforesaid findings are given in the order upon the issues raised in the case and for arriving at the aforesaid findings reasons are given by this court.
3. Now, the applicants seek to recall the said order on the grounds that the aforesaid findings are erroneous on facts and in law. If the application for recall of the order were to be allowed by this court, all the issues raised by the parties in the case which had been finally decided by this court, would be resurrected which, in turn, require reconsideration of them afresh. This reconsideration will certainly amounts to review of the order dated 09.12.2016 passed by this court whereas Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. prohibits the court to review or alter its orders and judgment once it is passed finally in a case except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others [(2001) 1 SCC 169].
4. For the foregoing reasons and the discussions, I disallow this application in limine granting the liberty to the applicants to challenge the order dated 09.12.2016 passed by this court in M.Cr.C. No. 13281/15 before a appropriate forum.
5. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is finally disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-