minal Appeal No 51 of 1967
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 168 of 1966
R K Garg section C Agarwala G V Kalikar section K Dhingra and M section Gupta for the appellants
W section Barlingay and A G Ratnaparkhi for respondent No 1
H R Khanna and section P Nayar for respondent No 2
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 non 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
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 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 187 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 May 7 1965 and held that Murkute and other applicants were members of the Bank
In the proceeding before the nominee certain documents 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 Murkute and other persons were never elected members of the Bank
On August 7 1965 Murkute filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Nagpur charging the President and Secretary of the Bank with committing offences under sections 465 and 471 IP 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 June 30 1964 whereas it was known to them that at that meeting no such clause was passed
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 Co operative Societies under section 1483 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 that 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 sections 465 and 471 IP 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 offence under section 146p of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act 1960 and without the sanction of the Registrar the complaint was not maintainable
Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure insofar as it is relevant provides  1 No Court shall take cognizancea a b 188 c of any offence described in section 463 or punishable under section 471 
when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding except on the complaint in writing of such court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate
2 In clauses b and c of sub section 1 the term Court includes a Civil Revenue or Criminal Court but does not include a Registrar or Sub Registrar under the Indian Registration Act 1877 Murkute complained that the President and the Secretary of the Bank who were parties to the proceeding before the nominee of the Registrar had committed offences under sections 465  471 IP Code in respect of documents produced or given in evidence at the trial
If the Registrar s nominee is a Court within the meaning of section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate could not take cognizance except on the complaint in writing by the Registrar s nominee or of some court to which he was subordinate
To determine whether the Registrar s nominee is a court it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act 1960 relating to the functions of the nominee and the powers with which he is invested counsel for the appellants urges that by the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act the power of the Civil Court to entertain disputes with regard to certain matters concerning cooperative societies is expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the Registrar or his nominee is alone competent to determine those questions thereby the Registrar and his nominee are invested with the judicial power of the State and they are on that account courts within the meaning of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 22 of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act 1960 defines arbitrator as meaning a person appointed under this Act to decide disputes referred to him by the Registrar and includes the Registrar s nominee or board of nominees
 Section 91 and the following sections which occur in Ch
IX relate to disputes and arbitration
By section 91 insofar as it is material it is provided  1 Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force any dispute touching the constitution election of the office bearers conduct of general meetings management or business of a society shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute   to the Registrar if both the parties hereto are one or other of the following 189 a b a member past member or a person claiming through a member past member or a deceased member of a society or a society which is a member of the society
c d e 2 When any question arises whether for the purpose of the foregoing subsections matter referred to for decision is a dispute or not the question shall be considered by the Registrar whose decision shall be final
3 Save as otherwise provided under sub section 3 of section 93 no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in sub section 1
 Section 93 provides  1 If the Registrar is satisfied that any matter referred to him or brought to his notice is a dispute within the meaning of section 91 the Registrar shall subject to the rules decide the dispute himself or refer it for disposal to a nominee or a board of nominees appointed by the Registrar
2 Where any dispute is referred under the foregoing sub section for decision to the Registrar s nominee or board of nominees the Registrar may at any time for reasons to be recorded in writing withdraw such dispute from his nominee or board of nominees and may decide the dispute himself or refer it again for decision to any other nominee or board of nominees appointed by him
3 Notwithstanding anything contained in section 91 the Registrar may if he thinks fit suspend proceedings in regard to any dispute if the question at issue between a society and a claimant or between different claimants is one involving complicated questions of law and fact until the question has been tried by a regular suit instituted by one of the parties or by the society
If any such suit is not instituted within two months from the Registrar s order suspending proceedings the Registrar shall take action as is provided in subsection 190 Section 94 provides for the procedure of settlement of disputes and power of the Registrar his nominee or the board of nominees
It provides insofar as it is material  1 The Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees hearing a dispute under the last preceding section shall hear the dispute in the manner prescribed and shall have power to summon and enforce attendance of witnesses including the parties interested or any of them and to compel them to give evidence on oath affirmation or affidavit and to compel the production of documents by the same means and as far as possible in the same manner as is provided in the case of a Civil Court by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908
2 Except with the permission of the Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees as the case may be no party shall be represented at the hearing of a dispute by a legal practitioner
 Sub section 3 of section 94 authorises the Registrar his nominee or the board of nominees to join or substitute new parties
Section 95 authorises the Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees to pass an order of attachment and other interlocutory orders
Section 96 provides When a dispute is referred to arbitration the Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees may after giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties to the dispute to be heard make an award on the dispute on the expenses incurred by the parties to the dispute in connection with the proceedings and fees and expenses payable to the Registrar or his nominee or as the case may be board of nominees
Such an award shall not be invalid merely on the ground that it was made after the expiry of the period fixed for deciding the dispute by the Registrar and shall subject to appeal or review of revision be binding on the parties to the dispute
 Section 97 provides Any party aggrieved by any decision of the Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees under the last preceding section or an order passed under section 95 may   appeal to the Tribunal
Section 98 provides that every order passed by the Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees or in appeal therefrom shall it not carried out on a certificate signed by the Registrar be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and shall be executed in 191 the same manner as a decree of such court or be executed according to the law and under the rules for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue
By section 99 a private transfer or delivery of or encumbrance or charge on property made or created after the issue of the certificate of the Registrar under section 98 shall be null and void as against the society on whose application the certificate was issued
Jurisdiction of the Civil Court by section 913 to entertain a suit in respect of any dispute referred to in sub section
1 of section 91 is expressly excluded and the dispute is required by law to be referred to the Registrar or his nominee
Against the decision of the Registrar s nominee an appeal lies under section 97 and the order made for payment of money is enforceable as a decree of the Civil Court
The Registrar or his nominee called upon to decide the dispute are bound to hear it in the manner prescribed and they have power to summon and enforce attendance of witnesses and to compel them to give evidence on oath affirmation or affidavit and to compel production of documents
The effect of these provisions according to counsel for the Appellants is that the judicial power of the State to deal with and dispose of disputes of a civil nature which fall within the description of section 911 is vested in the Registrar s nominee and he is on that account made a court within the normal connotation of the term
Section 1952 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enacts that the term court includes a Civil Revenue or Criminal Court but does not include a Registrar or Sub Registrar under the Indian Registration Act 1877
The expression court is not restricted to courts Civil Revenue or Criminal it includes other tribunals
The expression court is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure
Under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act Court is defined as including all Judges and Magistrates and all persons except arbitrators legally authorised to take evidence
But this definition is devised for the purpose of the Evidence Act and will riot necessarily apply to the Code of Criminal Procedure
The expression Court of Justice is defined in the Indian Penal Code by section 20 as denoting a Judge who is empowered by law to act judicially as a body when such Judge or body of Judges is acting judicially
That again is not a definition of the expression Court as used in the Code of Criminal Procedure
The expression Court in ordinary parlance is a generic expression and in the context in which it occurs may mean a body or organization invested with power authority or dignity
In Halsbury s Laws of England 3rd Edn Vol 9 article 809 at p 342 it is stated  Originally the term court meant among other meanings the Sovereign s place it has acquired the 192 meaning of the place where justice is administered and further has come to mean the persons who exercise judicial functions under authority derived  either immediately or mediately from the Sovereign
All tribunals however are not courts in the sense in which the term is here employed namely to denote such tribunals as exercise jurisdiction over persons by reasons of the sanction of the law and not merely by reason of voluntary submission to their jurisdiction Thus arbitrators committees of clubs and the like although they may be tribunals exercising judicial functions are not Courts in this sense of that term
On the other hand a tribunal may be a court in the strict sense of the term although the chief part of its duties is not judicial
Parliament is a court
Its duties are mainly deliberative and legislative  the judicial duties are only part of its functions
 In article 810 it is stated In determining whether a tribunal is a judicial body the facts that it has been appointed by a nonjudicial authority that it has no power to administer an oath that the chairman has a casting vote and that third parties have power to intervene are immaterial especially if the statute setting it up prescribes a penalty for making false statements  elements to be considered are 1 the requirement for a public hearing subject to a power to exclude the public in a proper case and 2 a provision that a member of the tribunal shall not take part in any decision in which he is personally interested or unless he has been present throughout the proceedings
A tribunal is not necessarily a court in the strict sense of exercising judicial power because 1 it gives a final decision 2 hears witnesses on oath 3 two or more contending parties appear before it between whom it has to decide 4 it gives decisions which effect the rights of subjects 5 there is an appeal to a court and 6 it is a body to which a matter is referred by another body
Many bodies are not courts although they have to decide questions and in so doing have to act judicially in the sense that the proceedings must be conducted with fairness and impartiality such as the former assessment committees the former court of referees which was constituted under the Unemployment Insurance Acts the blenchers of the Inns of Court when considering the conduct of one of their members the 193 Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical
Council when considering questions affecting the conduct of a medical man a trade union when exercising disciplinary jurisdiction over its members or the chief officer of a force exercising discipline over members of the force
 A body required to act judicially in the sense that its proceedings must be conducted with fairness and impartiality may not therefore necessarily be regarded as a court
Counsel for the appellants however invited our attention to a number of decisions in support of his contention that wherever there is a dispute which is required to be resolved by a body invested with power by statute and the body has to act judicially it must be regarded as a court within the meaning of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Counsel asserted that every quasi judicial authority is a court within the meaning of section 195 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The contention is inconsistent with a large body of authority of this Court to which we will presently refer
By section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is enacted that certain offences amounting to contempt of lawful authority of public servants ie offences falling under sections 172 to 188 IP Code offences against public justice under sections 193 194 195 196 199 200 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 and 228 when such offences are alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court and offences described in section 463 or punishable under sections 471 475 or 476 when such offences are alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding cannot be taken cognizance of by any court except in the first class of cases on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned and in the second and third class of cases on the complaint in writing of such Court or some other Court to which it is subordinate
An offence ordinarily signifies a public wrong  it is an act or omission which is a crime against society  it may therefore be brought to the notice of the Court by any person even if he is not personally aggrieved by the act or omission
To that rule there are certain exceptions which are specified in sections 195 196 197 198 198A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other special statutes
Authority of courts to entertain complaints in respect of the offences so specified is barred in view of the special nature of the offence which vitally affect individuals only or public bodies and in the larger interest of society it is deemed expedient to exempt them from the general rule
194 The nominee of the Registrar acting under section 96 performs the functions substantially of an arbitrator to whom a dispute is referred for adjudication
The Registrar may appoint a single nominee or a board of nominees and may at any time for reasons to be recorded in writing withdraw such dispute from the nominee or board of nominees and may decide the dispute himself or refer it again for decision to another nominee or board of nominees appointed by him
Under sub section
3 of section 93 it is open to the Registrar to suspend proceedings in regard to any dispute if the question at issue between a society and a claimant or between different claimants is one involving complicated questions of law or fact
The jurisdiction of the nominee or board of nominees arises by reason not of investment by statute but by appointment made by the Registrar who exercises control over the proceeding
The nominee therefore derives his authority from his appointment by the Registrar  the Registrar is entitled to withdraw his authority and the Registrar may fix the time within which a dispute shall be disposed of  his adjudication is again called an award
The nominee is even entitled to make a provision for the expenses payable to the Registrar or to himself
It is true that the procedure of the nominee is assimilated to the procedure followed in the trial of a Civil proceeding
The nominee has the power to summon witnesses to compel them to produce documents and he is required to hear the dispute in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure
Thereby he is required to act judicially ie fairly and impartially  but the obligation to act judicially will not necessarily make him a court within the meaning of section 195 of the Code
The position of a nominee of the Registrar is analogous to that of an arbitrator designated under a statutory arbitration to which the provisions of section 47 of the  apply
The authorities to which our attention was invited by counsel for the appellants may now be considered
It may be sufficient here to observe that the tests laid down by this Court in certain cases to be presently noticed make many of the cases relied upon of doubtful authority
In Thadi Subbi Reddi vs Emperor1 it was held by a single Judge of the Madras High Court that the Registrar before whom a Co operative Society files its suit or its claim for enforcing a bond is a Court within the meaning of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the Registrar to whom a dispute touching a debt due to a society by a member is referred has power to administer oaths to require the attendance of all parties concerned and of witnesses and to require the production of all books and documents relating to the matter in dispute and the Registrar is required to give a decision in writing and when it is given the decision may be enforced on application to the Civil Court having jurisdiction as if it were a decree of the Court
2 00 deface or secrete or attempts to secrete any document which is or purports to be a will or an authority to adopt a son or any valuable security or mischief in respect of such document
section 477A penalises falsification of accounts by a clerk officer or servant or by a person employed in the capacity of a clerk officer or servant
The offence of forgery and its allied offences may be committed if a false document is made with intent to cause damage or injury to public or any person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed section 463
In order to attract section 463 IP Code there must therefore be making of a false document with the intention mentioned in that section
By 464 it is provided  A person is said to make a false document First
Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes signs seals or executes a document or part of a document or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made signed sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made signed sealed or executed or at a time at which he knows that it was not made signed sealed or executed or Secondly Who without lawful authority dishonestly or fraudulently by cancellation or otherwise alters a document in any material part thereof after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration or Thirdly Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign seal execute or alter a document knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot or that by reason of deception practised upon him he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration Making of a false document by a person in all the three clauses must be done dishonestly or fraudulently and with the necessary intention or knowledge contemplated by the three clauses
Section 146 of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act 1960 does not make any such intention as is referred to in sections 463 and 464 IP Code an ingredient of the offence it also renders a person who is merely privy to the destruction mutilation alteration falsification or secreting or to the making of any false or 201 fraudulent entry in any register book of account or document belonging to the society liable to be punished
under section 146 p The offence may be committed under section 146 only by an officer or member past or present of the society
Even destruction or secreting of a document or security is penalised under section 146 of the Act
We are unable to accept the contention that these two sections section 146p of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act and section 465 P Code are intended to deal with the same offence
It is true that certain acts may fall within both the sections
For instance tampering with or altering or falsifying any register book of account or security or making any false or fraudulent entry in the register book of account or document belonging to the society may when done with the requisite intention mention ed in section 464 read with section 463 IP Code be also an offence under section 146p of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act
But that in our judgment is not a ground for holding that section 465 IP Code and the related offences were intended to be pro tanto repealed by the enactment of section 146p of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
When the Indian Penal Code seeks to impose in respect of offences under As 477 imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life or with imprisonment upto a period of seven years for an offence under section 477A it would be difficult to hold that when committed by an officer or a member of a society the maximum punishment which can be imposed by virtue of section 146p would be three years rigorous imprisonment only
This Court in Om Prakash Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh1 held that the offences under section 409 IP Code and section 51c of the Prevention of Corruption Act are distinct and separate offences and section 409 IP Code is not repealed by section 51 c of the Prevention of Corruption Act
In a recent judgment of this Court in T section Balliah vs T section Rengachari2 we had occasion to consider whether section 177 IP Code was repealed by section 52 of the Indian Income tax Act
It was pointed out that in considering the problem the Court must consider the true meaning and effect of the two Acts and unless there is repugnancy or inconsistency between the two enactments or that the two enactments cannot stand together they must be treated as cumulative
It is clear from a perusal of section 146 p of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act 1960 and sections 463 and 464 IP Code
that they are two distinct offences which are capable of being 1 1957 SCR423
7 Sup C 169 14 2  202 Committed with different intentions by different sets of persons and it could not be contemplated that the Legislature of the State of Maharashtra intended to repeal pro tanto the provisions of section 465 IP Code by enactment of section 146 of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act
It is unnecesary in the circumstances to consider the question whether the Maharashtra State Legislature was competent to repeal the provisions of section 465 IP Code
The law relating to Co operative Societies may be enacted in exercise of the power under List II Entry 32 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution but if section 146 is directly intended to trench upon a provision of the Indian Penal Code falling within List 11 Entry 1 sanction of the President under article 2542 would apparently be necessary
Both the contentions raised by counsel for the appellants fail
The appeal is dismissed
GC Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Nagpur District Land Development Bank Ltd was registered as a society under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960
There was dispute as to whether one M  had been elected as a member of the Bank at a meeting of the Board of Directors
The Registrar of Cooperative Societies referred the dispute to a nominee
Certain documents including the minutes book of the Bank were produced before the nominee M  filed a complaint against the President and Secretary of the Bank charging them with offences under sections 465 and 471 IPC for having forged the minute book and producing it before the nominee
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 Cooperative Societies under section 1483 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Bank Act 1960
The trial magistrate rejected the contention
The order was confirmed by the Court of Session and the High Court Of Bombay
In appeal before this Court the following contentions were urged on behalf of the accused appellants  i That the nominee of the Registrar appointed under section 95 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 was a court  within the meaning of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a complaint for offences under sections 465 and 471 Indian Penal Code alleged to have be en committed by a party to any proceeding in respect of the 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 ii That the ingredients of the offence of forgery punishable under section 465 IP Code and of the offence under section 146p of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act are the same and the general provision is on that account pro tanto repealed and in any event in view of section 1483 of the Maharashtra Act no prosecution could be initiated in respect of the offences charged otherwise than with the sanction of the Registrar
HELD  i The nominee exercising power to make an award under section 96 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 derives his authority not from the statute but from investment by the Registrar in his individual discretion
The power invested is liable to be suspended and may be withdrawn
He is not entrusted the judicial power of the State  he is merely an arbitrator authorised within the limits of the power conferred to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to him
He is not a court within the meaning of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Pro Sup
CI69 13 18 6 Thadi Subbi Reddi vs Emperor  Velayuda Mudali  Anr
vs Co operative Rural Credit Society  Ors  Y Mahabaleswarappa vs M Gopalaswami Mudaliar AIR 1935 Mad 673 Nand Lal Ganguli vs Khetra Mohan Ghose ILR  Jagannath Prasad vs State of Uttar Pradesh   Lalji Haridas vs State of Maharashtra  Anr   Shri Virindar Kumar Satyawadi vs State of Punjab 1955 2 SCR 1013 Brajnandan Sinha vs Jyoti Narain   Hari Pandurang  Anr
vs Secretary of State for India in Council ILR  Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha vs Sitamarhi Central Co operative Bank Ltd  and Malabar Hill Co operative Housing Society Ltd Bombay vs K L Gauba  Ors
AIR 1964 Bom
147 considered
ii Section 146p of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 and sections 463 and 464 IPC are two distinct offences which are capable of being committed with different intentions by different sets of persons and it could not be contemplated that the Legislature of the State of Maharashtra intended to repeal pro tanto the provisions of section 465 IPC by enactment of section 146 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
The prosecution in the present case not being under the Maharashtra Act sanction of the Registrar under section 148 thereof was not necessary
201 H 202 A Om Prakash Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh 1957 SCR 423 and T section Balliah vs T section Rengachari   applied