S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No.
K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, G. V. Kalikar, S. K. Dhingra and M. S. Gupta, for the appellants.
R. Khanna and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No.
168 of 1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 3, 1966 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Criminal Revision Application No.
The Trial Magistrate rejected the companytention.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. 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 number borrowing member.
At a meeting of the Bank held on June 30, 1964, the application of Murkute and of 94 others were granted and they were enrolled as members.
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 numberinee decided the dispute on May 7, 1965 and held that Murkute and other applicants were members of the Bank.
But in the list of members entitled to take part in the General Meeting dated June 30, 1964 the names of Murkute and others were number included.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCriminal Appeal No.
In the proceeding before the numberinee certain documents including the minutes book of the Bank were produced.
It was alleged in the companyplaint that the two accused had dishonestly and fraudulently introduced a clause in Resolution No.
The Registrar referred the dispute for adjudication under s. 93 of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, 1960, to H. V. Kulkarni, his numberinee.
It is claimed by Murkute that those books were fabricated by the President and the Secretary with a view to make it appear that Murkute and other persons were never elected members of the Bank.
3 appearing in the minutes book with the intention of causing it to be believed that the clause was part of the original.
51 of 1967.
The order was companyfirmed by the Court of Session and the High Court of Bombay.
465 and 471 I.P. Code.
The two accused raised an objection that the Magistrate had numberjurisdiction to take companynizance of the companyplaint without the previous sanction of the Registrar of Co operative Societies under s. 148 3 of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, 1960.
On August 7, 1965, Murkute filed a companyplaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, charging the President and Secretary of the Bank with companymitting offences under ss.
Resolution passed by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on June 30, 1964, whereas it was known to them that at that meeting numbersuch clause was passed.
