Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(xi) It was further alleged that A1 and A2 also dishonesty omitted to take any step about the missing file of the society. Even no police complaint was lodged by RCS officials in this regard. It was alleged that A1 dishonesty ignored the liquidation order deliberately and approved the reconstruction of the file. It was alleged that in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, A4 abused his official position and submitted a false inspection report regarding verification of registered office of the society at C-26, Shakti Apartment, Plot no. 5, Sector 9, Rohini, New Delhi. He also falsely reported that he met with Sh. H.S. Arora, Secretary of the Society who produced all relevant records. A4 also falsely reported that there were 120 members in the society and the list of members was not approved by RCS office. It was alleged that he also falsely mentioned in his report that the registered office of the Society was shifted from 19/3, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi to C-26, Shakti Apartment, Plot no. 5, Sector 9 ,Rohini, New Delhi. Besides that he also confirmed the election of Managing Committee purportedly held on November 23, 2013 and further confirmed that the membership register was complete in all respects. It was alleged that the accounts of the society were un-audited since registration and the society has prepared to up-to-date accounts i.e. March 31, 2003 and further mentioned that as per the proceeding register, the last meeting of the society was held on November 24, 2004. He further confirmed that the society records State through CBI v. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. (Sri Madhuvana CGHS) were found in the safe custody of Shri H.S Arora. He recited in his report that since the Society was not functioning since long, it was wound up vide order dated March 21, 1979. Accused Ram Nath (A4) had also mentioned the name of office bearers who were elected in the Special General Body Meeting purportedly held on November 23, 2003. As per his report Smt. Seema Aggarwal and Sh. K. C. Gupta were elected as President & Vice President whereas Sh. H. S. Arora, R. K. Aggarwal and Smt. Gurpreet Kaur were elected as Secretary, Treasurer and M.C. Member respectively.

(i) No doubt, the above recommendation was put up before A2 being the AR wherein he forwarded the file to his senior i.e. Joint Registrar with the following note.

"Action as suggested by DA (Dealing Assistant) mark A above may be initiated in this case".

(ii) The said note was approved by the seniors such as Joint Registrar and RCS. Pursuance to the said note, a circular was issued. Since, the file was not traceable in the branch, dealing assistant put up the said note with the recommendation to issue a circular to all the branches and it was forwarded by A2 and approved by other senior officers including RCS. To my mind, the action suggested by dealing assistant and approved by other senior officers was one of the reasonable action to search the missing file. Thus, to my mind, the said action on the part of A1 and A2 does not attract any criminal liability.

28. Now question arises whether the said action on the part of A1 and A2 is sufficient to draw any inference that they acted dishonestly.

29. To my mind, their action is not sufficient to draw any inference either of dishonest intention or of any criminal liability because since the file could not be traced out despite issuance of circular, it was one of the reasonable procedures to reconstruct the file. Admittedly, no complaint was lodged with the police about the missing of file, but CBI failed to highlight any provision of DCS Act or Rules, which may State through CBI v. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. (Sri Madhuvana CGHS) suggest that in case any file is found missing, RCS shall lodge a complaint with the police before passing the order of reconstruction. Moreover, it is pertinent to state that police action is required only where there is apprehension that file had been stolen by someone. Mere fact that the file is not traceable at the relevant point was not sufficient enough for the RCS to lodge a complaint with the police. Thus, to my mind, no inference can be drawn against A1 and A2 mere on the ground that RCS failed to lodge any complaint with the police about the missing of the file.

59. It is admitted case of CBI that A1 was working as Registrar of the Cooperative Societies at the relevant time and being the RCS while discharging his official duty, he had approved the noting of A3, which was forwarded by A2 for issuance of a circular to trace the missing file and thereafter, approved the note to reconstruct the file.

State through CBI v. Narayan Diwakar & Ors. (Sri Madhuvana CGHS) Since, being the RCS, A1 dealt with the file in question in discharge of his official duty and he passed the order on the file which was put up before him by A2 and A3 in discharge of their official duty, thus to my mind, the act of A1 i.e. to approve the noting for issuance of circular and reconstruct the file had direct connection with the discharge of his official duties.