Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. However, Section 103(ii) provides that fraudulent alteration or falsification of any document of the cooperative society will be punishable by imprisonment, which may extend to two years with a fine. Therefore, the offence of forgery regarding any document, including security, is mentioned in Section 103(ii) of the Act, 1965; hence, there is a specific provision of punishment for forgery regarding document and security, which is the same as the offence mentioned in Chapter 18 of I.P.C. Though all forms of forgery under Section 103(ii) of the Act, 1965 is punishable for a term up to two years. Still, a similar offence is punishable under Chapter 18 of I.P.C. with more than two years and even up to life imprisonment.

20. However, the offence of breach of trust is not punishable under the Act of 1965 but is punishable under the I.P.C. Therefore, prosecution of breach of trust against an employee or officer of a cooperative society will be conducted under the provision of the I.P.C. Even otherwise, other offences regarding forgery of records or the security of society can be prosecuted under the provision of the I.P.C. without invoking the provision of the Act of 1965.

21. Though it is correct that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Laljit Rajshi Shah (supra) that an employee of the cooperative society is not a public servant under Section 21 of I.P.C. for offence u/s 409 I.P.C., he cannot be prosecuted under Section 409 I.P.C. as he is not a public servant. However, this question can be raised at the time of framing of charge because employees of cooperative society can be prosecuted for breach of trust.

23. However, from a perusal of the judgement of Devendra Singh Parihar (supra) it is clear that the question of offence regarding the forgery of a document was not before the Court; therefore, no law was laid down regarding prosecution of forgery with respect to documents of cooperative society which is punishable under chapter 18 of I.P.C. as well as under Section 103 of the Act, 1965. This Court, in an earlier paragraph, already observed that the provision of Section 103(ii) of the Act, 1965 specifically provides punishment for the offence of forgery regarding documents and security belonging to a cooperative society. Therefore, a question arises whether an employee of society can be prosecuted for the offence of forgery under Chapter 18 of I.P.C. despite the fact that there is specific provision for the punishment of the same under Section 103(ii) of the Act, 1965.

25. In the Act of 1965, no such provision can be said to be pari materia to Section 89 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. In the Act, 1965 there are only two provisions; one is Section 90, which is with regard to overriding effect of Chapter 11 of the the Act, 1965 and also Section 111, which also provides bar of jurisdiction regarding certain cases including the dispute and award under Section 70 of the Act, 1965 but there is no provision providing overriding effect of the offence and penalty in Chapter 14 of the Act, 1965 which includes offence of forgery over all other laws including I.P.C.