SHAH, - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THE Nagpur District Land Development Bank Ltd. is registered as a society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. One Narayan Tanbaji Murkute applied for membership of the bank as a "nonborrowing member". At a meeting of the bank held on 30/06/1964, the application of Murkute and 94 others were granted and they were enrolled as members. But in the list of members entitled to take part in the General Meeting, dated 30/06/1964, the names of the Murkute and others were not included. . Murkute and others then applied to the Registrar Co-operative Societies for an order declaring that they were entitled to participate in the election of office-bearers and for an injunction restraining the President and the secretary from holding the Annual General Meeting. The Registrar referred the dispute for adjudication under Section 93 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, to H. V. Kulkarni, his nominee. The nominee decided the dispute on 7/05/1965, and held that Murkute and other applicants were members of the bank. In the proceeding before the nominee certain document including the minutes book of the bank were produced. It is claimed by Murkute that those books were fabricated by the President and the secretary with a view to make it appear that Murkuti and other persons were never elected members of the bank. . On 7/08/1965, Murkute filed a complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Glass, Nagpur, charging the President and Secretary of the bank with committing offences under S. 465 and 471, 1. P. Code. It was alleged in the complaint that the two accused had dishonestly and fraudulently introduced a clause in Resolution no. 3 appearing in the minutes book with the intention of causing it to be believed that the clause was part of the original resolution passed by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on J 30/06/1964, whereas it was known to them that at that meeting no such clause was passed.
(3.) . The two accused raised an objection that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint without the previous sanction of the Registrar of Go-operative Societies under Section 148(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Trial Magistrate rejected the contention. The order was confirmed by the court of Session and the High court of Bombay. . In this court counsel for the accused raised two contentions (1) that the nominee of the Registrar appointed under Section 95 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, was a "court" within the meaning of Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure and a complaint for offences under S. 465 and 471, 1. P. Code, alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, cannot be entertained except on a complaint in writing of such court, or of a court to which it is subordinate ; and (2) that offences charged in the complaint fell within the description of the offences under Section 116(p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and without the sanction of the Registrar the complaint was not maintainable. 170;