- (1.)THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koilpatti. The case arose out of a complaint preferred against the respondent by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tirunelveli, for an offence under Section 52 (a) read with Section 55 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act for furnishing false information by the respondent in his capacity as secretary of the Co-operative Marketing Society, Sankarankoll.
(2.)UNDER Section 56 (3) of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, no prosecution shall be instituted under the Act without the previous sanction of the Registrar. "registrar" is defined in Section 2 (g) of the Act as meaning "a person appointed to perform the duties of a Registrar of Co-operative Societies under this Act. " Under Section 3 of the Act,
"the State Government may appoint a person to be Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State of Madras or any portion of it and may, by general or special order, confer on any other persons all or any of the powers of a Registrar under this Act. "
By a notification dated 23rd August 1954, in G. O. No. Ms. 1142, the Government conferred on Deputy Registrars all the powers of a Registrar under the Act except those referred to under Sections 43. 44, 131 (5) and 57. According to this notification, undoubtedly, the powers, if any, under Section 56 must be deemed to have been conferred on the Deputy Registrar. He, therefore, gave sanction and himself filed a complaint before the court. The lower court has held that the Deputy Registrar is entitled to give sanction, but he cannot himself file a complaint. It is on that ground that the lower Court has acquitted the respondent,
(3.)IN appeal, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that since the Government has conferred all the powers of a Registrar on the Deputy Registrar, except the powers under Sections 43, 44, 51 (9) and 57, the Deputy Registrar must be deemed to be a Registrar within the meaning of that term arid therefore he could himself give sanction and file the complaint, "prima facie", this argument appears to be quite correct. But it is pointed out by Mr. Kailasam, appearing for the respondent, that there is only one Registrar appointed under the Act and he is the person referred to in Section 2 (g) of the Act, Under Section 3. though the Government may, by general or special order, confer all the powers of a Registrar, he still does not become a Registrar within the meaning of that expression in 8. 2 (g ). Section 3 simply states that the Government may appoint a person to be Registrar of Co-operative Societies, for the Presidency of Madras, or any portion of it and may, by general or special order, confer on any other persons, all or any of the powers of a Registrar. If any other person is included in the definition of Registrar, such as the Registrar means a person appointed to perform the duties of a Registrar of Co-operative Societies under this Act and any other person or persons on whom powers are conferred, then certainly he will be a Registrar within the meaning of that expression. But the Legislature not having said so, under the definition of "registrar", the person or persons on whom the Government confers those powers no doubt has the powers of a Registrar, but he does not become the Registrar himself within the meaning of the expression in Section 2 (g ). Though by the G. O. the Deputy Registrar has got all the powers excepting those mentioned in the sections mentioned above and therefore has all the powers under Section 56 also still he does not become a Registrar and therefore under 01. (3) the sanction that has got to be given must be by the Registrar and not by the Deputy Registrar although all the powers may be conferred on him. The lower court is wrong in holding that the Deputy Registrar has power to give sanction. The order of acquittal can be upheld only for the reason that the sanction of the Registrar has not been obtained.