OM PRAKASH PRADHAN, J. - (1.) THIS revision by the accused is directed against the order dated 31.8.1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate II, Saharanpur in Criminal Case No. 706 of 1991, whereby he rejected the application filed on behalf of accused revisionist to discharge him.
(2.) FACTS leading to this revision may be briefly indicated as follows: The accused - revisionist was a Secretary of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Chhutmalpur, District Saharanpur. For certain misconduct, he was punished departmentally and a writ petition against the order of removal passed against him is pending in this court. On 10.12.1988, a First information Report was lodged by the Assistant District Cooperative Officer saying that the accused - revisionist had received certain amount from certain cultivators but he did not deposit the, same in the samiti and thereby committed criminal breach of trust. This First Information Report came to be registered under section 409 I.P.C. Investigation followed and the police submitted charge -sheet for prosecution of the accused - revisionist under section 409 I.P.C. On behalf of the accused - revisionist, an application was filed before the learned Magistrate saying that no charge need, be framed against him since no case was made out against him. This application has been rejected by the learned Magistrate by means of the impugned order. The accused - revisionist has assailed this order by means of this revision. It has been urged by the learned Counsel of the revisionist that offence, if any, may be said to have been made out under clause (b) of section 103 of the U.P. Corporative Societies Act and that, prosecution in respect of the said offence can be launched only after prior sanction of the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. According to the learned Counsel of the recidivist, no such prior sanction having been accorded by the Registrar, the accused - revisionist could not be prosecuted for the said offence.
(3.) A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate indicates that no such plea was advanced before him. It further appears that the emphasis was laid on section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the learned Magistrate rightly negatived this plea raised on behalf of the accused - revisionist. With regard to the sanction, the learned Magistrate pointed out that it was no part of the official duty of the accused - revisionist to have committed criminal breach of trust and, therefore, there was no question of obtaining sanction for his prosecution in respect of the offence of criminal breach of trust. It may be pointed out that this plea of sanction does not appear to have been raised before the learned Magistrate with reference to section 105 read with section 103 (b) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. It appears that this plea of sanction was raised in respect of the prosecution launched by the police in respect of the offence under section 409 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate rightly repelled this contention raised before him.;