Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The background facts for adjudication of this petition in brief are as under:-

(2.1) The JKV Multi State Credit Co-operative Society Ltd.

(for short 'the Society') Headquarters at Lucknow is registered with the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Co-

operation under Section 7 of the Multi State Co-

operative Societies Act, 2002 (Act No.39 of the 2002), hereinafter called the 'the MSCS Act', and the rules framed thereunder. The activities of the Society are controlled and supervised by the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Society carries out welfare activities for its shareholder members through providing them with loans and credits. The Society does not accept the deposits of money from the public at large. The areas of operation of the Society are the States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Uttarakhand, Rajsthan and Madhya Pradesh. Applicant No.1 Pravhal Kaushik is the elected Chairman of the Society and applicant No.2 Rajnesh Shukla is the Branch Manager of the Society at Sidhi.

(2.2) Vide the common order dated 12.05.2014 passed in Writ Appeal No.596/2011 and other connected writ appeals and writ petitions, a Division Bench of the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur has directed the State Authorities to proceed against the companies or persons in relation to the irregularities/ illegalities committed by them in respect of the provisions of the Act. In pursuance of the said directions, the State Government of Madhya Pradesh issued a communication dated 28.05.2014 directing all the District Collectors of the State, who are the Competent Authorities in terms of Section 5(1) of the Act, to take appropriate actions in this regard. Thereafter the District Collector Sidhi (for short 'the Collector'), having exercised the powers of the Competent Authority vested in him by virtue of Section 5(1) of the Act, issued a letter No.311/Parivad/2014/Sidhi dated 26.07.2014 to the Society and five other financial establishments operating in District Sidhi to provide information on the points given in the letter and to appear before him on 28.07.2014 to record their statements in connection with the activities being carried out by them in the territorial jurisdiction of Sidhi district. The Society submitted a written reply dated 22.07.2014 and Sanjeev Mishra, the AGM- Compliance & Audit of the Society, recorded his statement on 28.07.2014 before the Collector in connection with the activities of the Society. Thereafter, the Collector issued an official order dated 30.07.2014, the impugned order, appointing various officers working under him with directions to each of them to make a detail enquiry into the working and functioning of a financial establishment assigned to him. The Society was one of the six establishments. Shailendra Singh, the SDM of Sub-Divsion Gopad Banas, was assigned to conduct enquiry in respect of the Society. To comply with the order, with his inspecting team he visited the office of the Society and made a thorough enquiry by inspecting records of the Society. The team seized all the movable properties and records of the Society preparing a Panchnama (the seizure memo). He submitted his report to the Collector. Later, the Collector registered a case against the Society bearing No.28/B-121/2014-2015 titled State of M.P. Vs. JKV Multi State Credit Society. In that case, on 12.01.2015, the impugned order, the Collector passed an ad-interim order of attachment of the properties owned by the Society. He has also given a direction in the order to apply within fifteen days from the date of passing the order to the Special Court designated under the Act for making the ad-interim order of attachment absolute. He passed the said order with the direction under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5(3) of the Act. Be it noted, the court of Sessions Judge Sidhi is the Special Court designated under the Act. Thereupon, on behalf of the Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate filed an application dated 21.01.2015 under Section 5(3) of the Act before the Sessions Court for making the order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the Collector absolute. In the application, he has also prayed that the Chief Executive and the members of the Board of Directors of the Society be prosecuted under Sub-

Section 4 of Section 3 of the Act for non-

compliance of provisions of Sub-Sections 1 to 2 of Section 3 of the Act. Upon the said application, Special Case No.1/15 titled the Competent Authrority-cum-Collector Sidhi Vs. JKV Multi State Co-operative Society is registered in the Sessions Court Sidhi. The learned Sessions Judge initiated the proceedings in the case complying with the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, he passed the order dated 02.03.2015, the impugned order, whereby the ad-interim order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the Collector is made absolute by him.

4. In reply, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the Society is neither owned nor controlled by the State Government or the Central Government because it is registered with the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture Co-operation, Government of India as an independent Society. Therefore, the Society is a financial establishment as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act. Consequently, provisions of the Act are applicable to the Society. He submitted that under the Shops and Establishment Act, 1958 and the M.P. Rules 1959 thereunder, the Society is registered in Sidhi district as "JKV Credit Co- operative Society Ltd." Pravhal Kaushik (applicant No.1), Rajnesh Shukla (applicant No.2) and Aditya Singh, are the owner, the Branch manager and the Agent respectively of the aforesaid Society. Thus, both the societies are different entities. Hence, the bye-laws of JKV Multi State Credit Co- operative Society Ltd. are not applicable to JKV Credit Co- operative Society Ltd Sidhi. He submitted that after the registration of the case on 16.02.2015, the said promoters of the said Society have filed an amendment application before the Labour Commissioner of the State for correction of the name of the Society as JKV Multi State Credit Co-operative Society, which proves their malafides. He submitted that as per the definition given in Clause(e) of Section 45-I of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (for short 'the RBI Act') the Society is a non-banking institution and, therefore, as per provisions of Sub-clause (iii) Clause(f ) of Section 45-I of the RBI Act, the Society cannot accept deposits even from his shareholder members before seeking the previous approval of the Central Government and before publication of the notification in the Official Gazette in this respect. He submitted that the Society has not produced any relevant document to prove that it has approval of the Central Government with relevant notification in the Official Gazette for receiving deposits of money from his shareholder members or the public at large. After referring to Bye-laws No.8 of the Society, he submitted that any person may take membership of it just on payment of ten-rupees admission fee. The Society is taking this nominal admission fee as a Smoke-Screen to show that it does not receive deposits of money from the public at large. After referring to relevant provisions of the MSCS Act, he submitted that the Society is registered under the Act only because the area of operation of the Society is in more than one provinces. But in the said Act, there is no provision that in case a society is registered under the Act, then it is not necessary for such a society to obtain permission from the Reserve Bank of India in terms of Section 45-I (f )(iii) of the RBI Act to accept public deposits despite the fact that the society is a non-banking institution as per the amended definition of Section 45-I(e) of the RBI Act. He submitted that there is no specific provision in the Act that the competent authority i.e. the Collector himself has to file the complaint in terms of Section 3(4) of the Act for launching prosecution against a financial establishment which has not complied with the provisions of Section 3(1)(2) and (3) of the Act. The Collector may authorize any officer working under him to file complaint against any defaulter financial establishment. Hence, the complaint is competent for the prosecution of the applicants. He submitted that since the complaint is filed by the SDM on behalf of the Collector qua as Public Servant for prosecution of the applicants, the recording of the statements of the SDM and other witnesses as per Clause(a) of the proviso to Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. is not necessary before the registration of the complaint. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the decisions rendered in Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Vs. Roshanlal Agarwal (AIR 2003 SC 1900) and National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2009 (1) SCC 407). He submitted that the complaint against the applicants is filed for their prosecution under Section 3(4) of the Act for non-compliance of provisions of Section 3(1)(2) of the Act. The maximum punishment under Section 3(4) of the Act is the imprisonment up to three months or with fine which may extend to rupees one thousand or with both. Hence, the trial of the case will be held as a summons-case following the procedure laid down in Chapter-XX of the Cr.P.C. (Sections 251 to 259). Thus, the filing of a list of the witnesses with the complaint is not mandatory as per the provisions of Section 254(1)(2) Cr.P.C. He submitted that as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, an appeal shall lie before the High Court against an order passed by the Special Court. Hence, this petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Upon these submissions, he prayed that the petition is devoid of merits and substance, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.