ivil Appeal No 4974 of 1990
From the Judgment and Order dated 2061990 of the Bombay High Court in WP 2403 of 1989
GL Sanghi Mrs Jayshree Wad Dhruv Mehta and Ms Tamali Das Gupta for the Appellant SV Deshpande VN Patil and A section Bhasme NP for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KN SAIKIA J
Pursuant to the Notification issued in June 1986 the elections of Directors to the District Central Cooperative Bank Chandrapur hereinafter referred to as the Bank  the appellant filed his nomination papers in July 1986 and he was elected on 1881986 as one of the Directors of the Bank from the Brehmapuri Agricultral Sales and Purchase Society
His election was not called in question according to the procedure prescribed by the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act 
On 811987 the District Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies Chandrapur hereinafter referred to as the Deputy Registrar  issued a notice to the appellant under section 781 of the Act to show cause within 15 days as to why he should not be removed from the Board of Directors of the Bank as per the provisions of section 73FF and directed him to remain present on 221987 at 11 678 AM in the Deputy Director s office
The notice stated that the appellant had borrowed a loan of total Rs 10000 Rs 7000 as debt and Rs 3000 subsidy from the Bank and he kept the loan constanty in arrears till 21101986 and being elected as Director of the Bank on 1881986
till then he was working as the Director of the Bank
The notice further said Because you have remained in arrars of the loan instalments as referred above to the Maharashtra State Cooperative Land Development Bank under Section 73FFib of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act 1960 you are disqualified to be elected or to continue as Director or Executive Committee Member of the Executive Committee of a Cooperative Society and us 73FF2 of Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act 1960 a person committing defaults ceased to be the Executive Committee member or Director
From the information above given because the loan instalments of Maharashtra State Cooperative Land Development Bank remained due from you on the date of filing nomination papers for the election of post of Director of Chandrapur District Central Cooperative Bank and also on the date of your election and thereafter you are disqualified to contest the election to the post of Director of Chandrapur District Central Cooperative Bank as also to be elected and to continue as Director
And therefore under powers given to me by Section 781 of Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act 1960 and order No CSL14812498215 C87 dated 1781 of Agriculture and Cooperation Department of Maharashtra State Government
I KM Deshpande District Dy Registrar Cooperative Societies Chandrapur hereby ask you to show cause in writing as to why you should not be removed from the Board of Directors of Chandrapur District Central Cooperative Bank and from the Executive Committees of the other cooperative societies in the District
Your explanation in writing should be submitted to this office within 15 days from the receipt of this notice
 The appellant showed cause and also filed an additional reply on 101187 stating that he had not committed any default after the 679 amended section 73FF came into existence
 The Assistant Regisrar Cooperative Societies Chandrapur by his order dated 7121987 removed the appellant from the Committee of Directors of the Bank holding that appellant was defaulter on 3111986 on 3131986 and he became defaulter under the provisions of section 73FF1 of the Act and rejected the appellant s contention that section 73FF became applicable from 681986 as per the Government Notification issued on 1841986 and that as he had accepted that he paid the dues on 21101986 on 1881986 when he was elected as Director he was defaulter under section 73FF1 of the Act
The order of the Assistant Registrar dated 7121987 was served on the appellant on 81287
The appellant s appeal against that order was dismissed by the Divisional Joint Registrar of the Cooperative Societies Nagpur on 1521988 holding inter alia that section 73FF of the Act came into force on 1251986 and the appellant could be treated as a defaulter under that section and the mere making of payment on 211086 did not mean that the disqualification on account of his being defaulter which continued from 1881986 to 21101986 was extinguished and hence the appellant was not at all eligible to contest the election
The appellant s revision petition therefrom under section 154 of the Act was dismissed on 30889 by the Cooperation and textile Department State of Maharashtra Bombay holding that the appellant was defaulter under section 73FF of the said Act on 1881986 ie the date when he was declared elected as Director
The appellant s writ petition in the High Court filed on 191989 challenging the above order dated 30889 was dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20690 holding that the dues calculated on 31186 became recurring dues every following day and on 1251986 when section 73FF came into force the outstanding dues continued even on 1881986 when the appellant contested the election and that the question of giving retrospective effect to the section did not arise because the appellant was a defaulter when he contested the election and though he paid all the debts on 21101986 yet he could not be absolved of the disqualification on the day he contested the election
Hence this appeal by special leave
Mr G L Sanghi the learned counsel for the appellant submits inter alia that the impugned order of the Assistant Registrar removing the appellant from the Committee of the Directors is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Act prescribes a separate procedure for calling in 680 question the appellant s election as a Director of the Bank and that procedure having not been followed the Assistant Registrar could not have acted under section 781 of the Act which did not envisage the setting aside of an election as has been done by the impugned orderthat the appellant having repaid the entire loan before the impugned notice under section 781 of the Act was issued he was surely not a defaulter in presenti on the date of the notice and the provisions of section 781 were not attracted and that even assuming that the disqualification on the ground of default is common both for election and for continuation as a Director in the Committee the special provision for setting aside an election must prevail over section 78 as there would be apparent conflict between the two and the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant general words do not derogate from special would apply Mr V N Patil the learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra submits that the disqualification as defaulter continued after the election of the appellant and section 78 envisaged such a default and the appellant having continued to be a defaulter was lawfully removed and the fact that he repaid the loan before the notice was issued would not be material for the purpose of taking action under section 78
Chapter XI A of the Act deals with election of committees and officers of certain societies
Admittedly this Chapter applies to the Bank
Section 144E deals with disqualification for membership
Under sub section 1 thereof a person shall be disqualified for being elected as and for being a member of the committee of any specified society  e if he is so disqualified by or under any other provision of this Act
Section 144T deals with desputes relating to election and provides in sub section 1 that notwithstanding anything contained in section 91 or any other provisions of this Act any dispute relating to an election shall be referred to the Commissioner of the Division in which such election is held or to an officer not below the rank of Additional Commissioner of division authorised by the State Government in this behalf
The procedure for an election petition is prescribed by the subsequent section of that Chapter
Admittedly the appellant s election was not called in question under the above provision
Section 144E as have noted over and above the other specified disqualifications in sub section e included disqualifications by or under any other provisions of the Act
Section 781 which deals with powers of removal of committees or member thereof provides as follows 681 781 If in the opinion of the Registrar the committee of any society or any member of such committee makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it or him by this Act or the rules or the bye laws or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interests of the society or its members or wilfully disobeys interests of the society or its members or wilfully disobeys directions issued by the State Government or by the Registrar for the purposes of securing proper implementation of cooperative policy and development programme approved or undertaken by the State Government or is otherwise not discharging its or his functions properly and diligently and the business of the society has or is likely to come to a standstill or where any member of such committee stands disqualified by or under this Act for being a member the Registrar may after giving the committee or the member as the case may be an opportunity of stating its or his objections if any within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and after consultation with the federal society to which the society is affiliated by order a i remove the committee and ii appoint a committee consisting of three or more members who shall not be the members of the committee so removed of the society in its place or appoint one or more Administrators who need not be the members of the society but who shall not be the members of the committee so removed to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding six months which period at the discretion of the Registrar be extended by a further period not exceeding three months so however that the total period does not exceed nine months in the aggregate Provided that the Registrar shall have the power to change the committee or any member thereof or the Administrator or Administrators appointed under paragraph ii at his discretion even before the expiry of the period secified in the order made under this sub section b xxx xxx xxx Section 781 empowers the Registrar to remove a member of a committee who makes default or where any member of such committee 682 stands disqualified by or under this Act for being a member
Section 73FF deals with disqualification for membership of committee
Sub section 1 provides Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder in relation to the disqualification of being a member of a committee no person shall be eligible for being appointed nominated elected co opted or for being a member of a committee if he i is a defaulter of any society Explanation For the purposes of this clause the term defaulter includes a in the case of a primary agricultural credit society a member who defaults the repayment of the crop loan on the due date b in the case of term lending society a member who defaults the payment of any instalment of the loan granted to him xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Sub section 2 says A member who has incurred any disqualification under sub section 1 shall cease to be a member of the committee and his seat shall thereupon be deemed to be vacant This section was inserted by Maharashtra Act XX of 1986 with effect from 12586
If the impugned order is found to have been passed by way of setting aside the election of the appellant the order would be bad as the appellant s election had not been called in question in accordance with the procedure prescribad by the Act
However the notice has ex facie been issued under section 78 of the Act
No doubt there is reference to the appellant s having been a defaulter and disqualified for being elected but it has been addressed to the appellant as Director of the Bank and also stated You have been elected as Director on the Board of Directors of Chandrapur District Central Cooperative Bank on 1881986 and today on this date you are working as the Director of the said Bank
 It also refers to the appellant s being disqualified or to continue as Director or Executive Committee member of the Executive Committee  under 683 section 73FF of the Act and about ceasing too be a Director by committing default
From the above contents there is no room for holding that the appellant s election has been set aside by the impugned order on the other hand the emphasis is on the appellant s being disqualified to continue as Director or creasing to be Director on account of his having committed default
The question of generalibus specialia derogant special things take from general or generalia specialibus non derogant general words do not derogate from special therefore does not arise
What was stated in para 36 of the report in Hundraj Kanayalal Sajnani vs Union of India  at 1121 will not be relevant
The question of repugnancy involved in Zaverbhai Amaidas
vs The State of Bombay 1955 1 SCR 799 does not arise in this case
The decision in Maharashtra State Board of Education vs Paritosh Sheth  is also not apposite
The provisions relating to election have to be interpreted harmoniously with other provisions of the Act such as in section 781
Interpretare concordare leges legibus est optimus interpretendi modus
To interpret and in such a way as to harmonize laws with laws is the best mode of interpretation
Mr Sanghi does not dispute that the appellant was in arrear in respect of instalments on the date of his election and till 21101986 ie both prior and posterior to his election on 1881986
Admittedly the instalment was not paid on due date
There was of course some dispute as to the amount of interest payable and appropriation of the amount paid against interest instead of capital but all this would not exonerate the appellant from being in default on non payment of instalment on due date
Mr Sanghi however submits that the expression makes default or stands disqualified being in present the default must have been committed after the coming into force of section 73FF and that his default even if any was prior to that date and not after that date
We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept this submission
The day an instalment falls due on its due date failure to pay results in default and that default continues from day to day until it is repaid
Every day thereafter until payment results in making of default and therefore it could not be said that default could be on the due date only and thereafter no default but only liability
Considered by this principle the appellant can be said to have made default on the first day of his directorship and on every subsequent day till the instalment or instalments were paid
The submission has therefore to be rejected
684 Similarly the submission that the defalult must have been one committed after the Act came into force has also to be rejected on the same ground that immediately on the Act coming into force the appellant was a defaulter and so long that default continued he must be taken to have made default until repayment
What then would be the consequence of such a default
Sub section 2 of section 73FF says that a member who has incurred any disqualification under sub section 1 shall cease to be a member of the Committee and his seat shall thereupon be deemed to be vacant
Therefore the moment the appellant after election continued to be in default and therefore must be taken to have made default stood disqualified and thereby ceased to be a member of the committee and his seat deemed to have fallen vacant
In this view of the matter the notice of the Deputy Registrar was in effect to say that the appellant had already ceased to be a Director and his seat already fell vacant
In Keshaorao Narayanrao Patil vs District Deputy Registrar reported in Bombay High Court held that section 73FF2 did not operate automatically and that passing of an order of removal was necessary
This has to be interpreted in the context of the provisions in the section
In this view of the matter there could not be any infirmity either in the notice or in the impugned order of removal
The result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed
The interim orders if any stand vacated
No costs
RNJ Appeal dismissed


Summary:
On 23121976 at about 1 pm when Bali deceased along with PWs 1 and 5 was in his field the four appellants each armed with a Lathi along with Braham Singh armed with a Ballam  came there
On the exhortation of Chandroo all other appellants and Braham Singh attacked Bali with their respective weapons and caused injuries to him
While PW 3 tried to save her husband she too was injured
When PW 1 along with PWs 3 and 4 rushed to the scene of occurrence the assailants took to their heels
Injured Bali was removed to the hospital
He succumbed to his injuries on the same day at about 745 pm
It seems that there was trained relationship between the appellants and the deceased for a considerable length of time over grazing of cattle resulting in damage to the standing crops
On account of this there was simmering feeling between the parties
Added to that there were certain criminal prosecutions between the parties pending for over a period of two years
The four appellants along with Braham Singh since acquitted by the Trial Court took their trial
The Trial Court found the four appellants guilty of offences under section 302 read with section 34 and under section 323 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to six months  rigorous imprisonment respectively
The 5th accused Braham Singh was acquitted
On appeal the High Court held that the prosecution had not made out a case punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC but only under section 304 Part II IPC read with section 34 IPC
The High Court sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years
The conviction of all the appellants under section 323 read with 149 IPC was altered into one under section 323 read with 34 IPC and the sentence of six months  rigorous imprisonment was retained
686 Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that since both the courts below had overlooked the glaring infirmities and ignored the material evidence supporting the defence theory as well as the manifest errors appearing in the evidence this Court would be justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of both the courts
According to the learned counsel the prosecution had shifted the scene of occurrence changed the time of occurrence unduly delayed the registration of the case and put forth a false explanation for its tardiness both in the matter of registration and investigation of the case
Allowing the appeals by setting aside the convictions and the sentence imposed by the High Court this Court HELD 1 Under Article 136 Interference by the Supreme Court will be called for even with the findings of fact given by the High Court if the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly
690F The State of Madras vs A Vaidyanatha Iyer   Himachal Pradesh Administration vs Shri Om Prakash  Balak Ram vs State of UP   Arunachalam vs PSR Sadhananthan  State of UP Hamit Singh  Ors  State of UP vs Pheru Singh  Ors 1989 Suppl
1 SCC 288 referred to
2 The evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short of the test of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe to act upon it
697H 3 A thorough and scrupulous examination of the facts and the circumstances of the case leads to an irresistible and inescapable conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges leveled against these appellants by producing cogent reliable and trustworthy evidence
Both the Courts below instead of dealing with the intrinsic merits of the evidence of the witnesses have acted perversely by summarily disposing of the case pretermitting the manifest errors and glaring infirmities appearing in the case
698A B