BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) AN application under section 37 (1) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 hereinafter to be referred as the 'act' was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chirawa. The learned Magistrate passed an order under sub-section (3) of that section on February 16, 1982 and issued warrant for the seizure of the record concerning CFFRI, Bal Mandir Society, Pilani from the possession of the petitioner Ghaseeta Singh or wherever it might be.
(2.) BEING aggrieved by that order, petitioner Ghaseeta Singh preferred a revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The learned Sessions Judge by the order dated September 4,1982 rejected the revision petition on the ground that revision petition against an order passed under section 37 (3) of the Act does not lie. It is in grievance to that order that the petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court filing a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the 'code' ). Mr M. M. Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner put in appearance on behalf of non-petitioner No. I. M. D Singh at the admission stage. At the commencement of the arguments Mr. Ranjan raised a preliminary objection that the order passed under section 37 (3) of the Act not being an order passed by the Magistrate in his capacity of a Judicial Magistrate the provisions of section 482 of the Code are not attracted. The learned counsel referred to certain decisions of this Court to substantiate his contention, which I would just discuss, that the Magistrate was acting as a persona designate by virtue of the powers vested in him under the Act and not as a Judicial Magistrate and therefore, the provisions of the Code are not applicable. Mr. V. S. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners meeting out this preliminary objection submitted that the concerned society being registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 and not under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act 1965, the provisions of the Act were not attracted. The contention of Mr. Dave is that as the Magistrate has trespassed his jurisdiction this Court by exercising its inherent powers should interfere with the impugned order.
(3.) THIS is evident that the application was filed under section 37 (1) of the Act and the order causing grievance was passed under section 37 (3) of the Act. The pertinent question is whether the Magistrate passing that order was acting as a Court under the Code or under the specific power vested in him by virtue of the Act. Another question emerging from the Arguments of Mr. Dave would be, whether this Court should look into the matter from the point of view that the Magistrate has wrongly entertained an application filed under s. 37 (1) of the Act and for that reason the order passed under section 37 (3) was illegal. The point about the maintainability of a revision petition against an order passed by the Magistrate empowered under sec 37 (1) of the Act came for consideration before this Court in the case of Shiv Charan Dass Vs. Hakikatullah Khan (S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 304 of 1968) decided on August 24, 1958. Wherein the learned Judge has held that an order passed by a Magistrate under sub-section (3) of section 37 of the Act is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the Code. This finding was referred to in the case of Kashinath Joshi Vs. Satish Chandra (1 ). Their Lordships were in agreement with the observations of the single bench decisions referred to above and were pleased to discuss the scheme of Chapter IV of the Act. It was observed that Chapter IV of the Act deals with the Management of Cooperative Societies, and it is in course of the management of societies that the power has been given to the new Committee or Administrator or the Liquidator for applying to Magistrate, within whose jurisdiction the society functions, for securing the records and property of the society. Their Lordships were pleased to refer the Division Bench decision of this Court viz. Tara Chand Vs. Krishna Gopal (2) wherein it was held that the Magistrate and District Magistrate acting under sections 17 and 22 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent Eviction) Act are not criminal courts and therefore, no revision lies under sections 435 and 439. In view of these observations, their Lordships deciding the case of Kasinath Joshi Vs. Satish Chandra (supra) were pleased to observe as under: "there is no doubt that the Magistrate, within whose jurisdiction the society functions, is appointed under the Criminal Procedure Code and constitutes a Criminal Court. However, power may be conferred on the presiding officer or such a criminal court by a special or local statute. If this power is of executive or administrative character, such officer cannot be said to be exercising such power in judicial capacity and, as a necessary corollary, orders passed by such officer will not be the orders of a criminal court but must be considered as orders passed by an officer in executive or in administrative capacity. " The matter involved in the aforesaid case of Kashi Nath Joshi vs. Satish Chandra (supra) was concerning the Contempt of a Court acting under section 37 of the Act. Their Lordships after discussing the implications of the expression 'court Subordinate to High Court' were pleased to hold that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the proceedings before the City Magistrate, Jodhpur were of criminal or evil nature. ;