Holding

The Supreme Court held that the complainant had locus standi and the complaint made out a prima facie case of offence under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act and the IPC, and therefore the criminal proceedings could not be quashed under Section 482.

Summary

The Director of a housing cooperative society filed a complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC alleging that the society's office bearers had cheated the society by allotting a plot at a price far below market value and making illegal gains, based on a report of the Joint Registrar under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. A magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. The respondents sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC; the High Court allowed the petition, holding that the complaint was imaginary and the complainant lacked locus standi. The Supreme Court set aside that order, holding that a member of the cooperative has locus standi, the allegations prima facie disclose offences under Section 109 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act and the IPC, and Section 111 of the Act does not bar a court from taking cognizance of offences under other statutes. Consequently, the criminal proceedings were not liable to be quashed.

Issues considered

Whether a member/director of a cooperative society has locus standi to file a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC.
Whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a cognizable offence warranting cognizance, or whether they can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether Section 111 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act bars a court from taking cognizance of offences punishable under the IPC.
Whether the High Court erred in deeming the complaint imaginary and in quashing the proceedings.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 200, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 34, s. 415, s. 420
Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959s. 109, s. 109(6), s. 111

Subjects

locus standiSection 482 CrPCcooperative societiescheatingSection 420 IPCSection 109 Karnataka Cooperative Societies Actinherent jurisdictionquashing of criminal proceedings

Judgment

,., ) [2009] 5 S.C.R. 961

K. ASHOKA A
v.
N.L. CHANDRASHEKAR & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 733-734 of 2009)
~

.. APRIL 15, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Complaint
alleging offence u!s. 420134 /PC - By Director of Housing Co-
operative Society- Against office bearers of Society - On the c
basis of report of Registrar of Co-operative Society -
Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence - High Court
quashing the proceeding on the grounds that the Director had
~

no locus standi to lodge the complaint and that a/legations
~ were imaginary - On appeal, held: Quashing of the D
'
proceedings not correct - Prima facie, the a/legations make
out a case against the accused - Complainant as a member
of the Society had the locus standi to file the complaint -
Offences under Cooperative Societies Act as well as /PC
made out - If an offence u/s. 109 of the Act is made out, there E
is no bar u/s. 111 of the Act on a court to take cognizance of
an offence under any other Statute - Kamataka Co-operative
Societies Act, 1959 - ss. 109 and 111.
·-A_
Appellant (Director of a House Building Co-operative
Society) filed a complaint against the respondents (the F
office bearers of the Society) before Joint Registrar of Co-
operative Societies alleging that the respondents allotted
a site to a person at a much less price than its market price
and made illegal gain. He sought investigation into the
matter. Enquiry Report was against the respondents. On G
; the basis of the report, appellant filed a complaint u/s. 200
¥
~ Cr.P.C. in respect of commission of offence u/s. 420/34
IPC. Magis,trate took cognizance of the offence.

961 H
l
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R. ,_
A Respondents filed petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
the criminal proceedings. High Court allowed the same.
Hence the present appeals.

Allowing the appeals, the Court
B HELD:1. The High Court in exercise of its inherent ~

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may quash a
criminal proceeding inter alia in the event the allegations
made in the complaint petition even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety does not
c disclose commission of a cognizable offence. The
primary allegation against the respondents in the
complaint petition make out an offence not only under the
provisions of Section 109 of Karnataka Co-operative
Societies Act, 1959, but also other offences. [Paras 11
D and 13] [970-C, F]
1
Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 6
sec 736, referred to.
2. Section 109 of the Act provides for commission of
E offences under the said Act. Therein, no statutory
embargo has been placed for a court to take cognizance
of an offence under the provisions of IPC. If the
allegations made in the complaint petition or in the first
information report make out a case under IPC, Section 111
F of the Act, would constitute no bar for maintenance
~ .
thereof being applicable only in respect of offences
committed under the Act. The said statutory interdict
therefore cannot be extended in regard to commission of
an offence under any other Act. [Para 18] [974-H; 975-A-
G BJ

3. Whether the allegations made in the complaint
1 '
petition are correct or not have to be considered during
trial. The High Court in its impugned judgment proceeded
inter alia on the premise that the appellant has no locus
H
K. ASHOKA v. N.L. CHANDRASHEKAR & ORS. 963
>.> .)

standi. It may be true that the allottee and the subsequent A
purchaser of the plot had not been impleaded as
accused but that by itself may not be a ground for
··quashing the order of cognizance taken against the
respondents. If the role played by them in regard to that
part of the conspiracy is only to make the allottee a B
member.and got the land allotted in his name by way of
camouflag~. appellant as a member of the society had a
locus standito file a complaint. [Para 15] [972-F·G]
4. The High Court is not correct to opine that no
document has been produced by the appellant to show
c
that the allottee made an assignment of the land in favour
· of the purchaser. Evidently, no document can be
produced for the purpose of showing that the actual
....;. amount of consideration for the said transaction
amounted to Rs.28,00,000/- although ostensibly the D
~
amount of Rs.10,20,000/- has been shown to be amount
of consideration in the registered document. It may be
true that the question as to whether the report of the
Registrar can be relied upon for the purpose of showing
< as to how the act of cheating has been committed by the E
respondents is a matter which must be considered at the
time of trial but there cannot be any doubt whatsoever
that so long as the report is not set aside, the same could
. )_
form the basis for forming of an opinion at least for the
purpose of proceeding against the respondents that they F
manipulated the records of the cooperative society to
make unlawful gain for themselves and causing unlawful
loss to the society. [Para 16] [972-H; 973-A-D]
5. The opinion of the High Court that the averments
G
made in the complaint petition are imaginary is not based
.; ~
on any material. Even assuming that the complainant had
· a score to settle against the accused, the same by itself
• may not be a ground to quash the entire criminal
H
..
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
.. ~·

A proceedings particularly in view of the fact that at least a
prima facie case has been established in view of the report
of the Registrar. [Para 17] [974-G]

Case Law Reference:
'-

B (200G) s sec 736 Referred to. Para 12 ~

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 733-734 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 01.08.2007 of the High
c Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No. 838/
2007 CNV Criminal Petition No. 910 of 2007.

G.V. Chandrashekar and Anjana Chandrashekar for the

D
Appellant.

S.N. Bhat and Kiran Suri for the Respondents. 1
- .

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
E ~
2. N.G.E.F. Employees House Building Cooperative
Society Limited (for short, "the society") is a society •
incorporated and registered under the Karnataka Cooperative
Societies Act, 1959 (for short, "the Act"). Appellant herein was
a Director of the society. He filed a complaint petition alleging ( '
F inter alia that the respondents herein who were the office-
bearers of the society, earned a huge amount for themselves
by alloting a site bearing No. 509 measuring 30' x 40' for a sum
of Rs. 2,40,000/- to one Gopal, a name lender who in turn, sold
the said site for a sum of Rs. 28,00,000/- to one
G Hanumanthegowda by a deed of sale dated 3.7.2006. However,

-
in the sale deed, the consideration amount was shown as
f I.
Rs.10,20,000/-.
It was contended that the respondents in connivance with
H the said Gopal made illegal gain as the market value of the said
..
K. ASHOKA v. N.L. CHANDRASHEKAR & ORS. 965
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
property was about Rs.28 lakhs. A

3. The following facts are admitted.

The land in question was acquired in the year 1985-86.
The society formed a layout and sites were allotted ·to its
members. However, few sites remained vacant. One of the B
persons whose lands were acquired for the society, namely,
Munivenkatappa (father of Gopal) allegedly had requested the
society to release one acre of land for his personal use,
pursuant whereto, the society resolved to release 337" x 132"
of land in favour of his family. Another application was filed by C
M. Gopal, son of said Munivenkatappa, in terms whereof
request was again made to the said society for allotment of the
land. The said request was received on 27.3.2006 and
allotment of a site bearing No. 509 measuring 30' x 40' for a
sum of Rs.2,40,000/- was made and a deed of sale was D
executed in his favour on 7.4.2006. A possession certificate
was also issued.

Within a period of three months, said Gopal sold the said
property in favour of Hanumanthegowda for a sum of E
Rs.28,00,000/-. However, in the sale deed, the consideration
amount was shown as Rs.10,20,000/-.

4. Indisputably, a complaint was filed before the Joint
Registrar of Cooperative Societies to cause an investigation
' > thereinto. On or about 29.12.2006, a report was submitted by F
him opining that the office bearers of the society, namely, the
respondents herein in connivance with Gopal and by making
him a tool in their hands, allotted the site which was sold for a
sum of Rs. 27,60,000/-. A recommendation for recovery of the
amount from the office bearers of the society was also made. G
In his report, it was furthermore stated:

"There is no site called No.509 in the approved plan of the
Society. The Society has not produced any documents/
records to show that the said Site No. 509 is released by H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
' '•

A BDA. The site No. 142 is existing and the same is allotted
to one Smt. Shailaja Swamy and registered the same in
her name by the Society as on 23/2/1995 itself. The
certified copy of the Sale Deed is produced herewith and
marked as "Annexure 13"·:
B
As per the Orders of the Hon'ble High Court of ..
Karnataka, it has come to know that the alternative/another
site was given to Smt. Shailaja Swamy during the period
of Special Officer. The copy of the same is marked as
"Annexure 14". It is further come to know that Smt. Shailaja
c Swamy had approached the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka by filing a writ petition against the Society on
the grounds that the alternative site allotted to him cannot
be made Khatha in her name because the said site is a
,,
C.A. site, which has been allotted and registered to her ~

D by the Society. When this matter is going on, how can the
Society allot the same i.e. No. 142 by naming it as Site
No. 509 and illegally allotting to Sri Gopal and registering
the same by the Society. This is an illegal act committed
by the Board of Directors."
E
5. Respondents, however, contend that the said enquiry
was conducted without hearing them and other office bearers
of the Society; no notice had been issued to them and no
opportunity of being heard or to participate in the enquiry
F proceedings had been provided. It is furthermore contended that ~ '
the proceedings before the Joint Registrar is still pending.
6. Thereafter, on the basis of the report submitted by the
Joint Registrar, a complaint petition under Section 200 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") in respect
G of commission of an offence under Section 420 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") was
filed by the appellant, inter alia, alleging: i( I, '

"10. The Complainant further submits while allotting site
H No. 509 to Sri Gopal the Accused have played a
K. ASHOKA v. N.L. CHANDRASHEKAR & ORS. 967
)
~
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
big fraud on the society. They do not know that there A
is already a site bearing No. 142 which is existing
on the same land. The Accused have shifted site
No. 509 on site No. 142 and registered the same
in favour of Sri Gopal. The Complainant has
. obtained a certified copy of site No. 142 and site B
. No. 509 and surprised to find both the schedules
one and the same. The sub registrar K R Puram
Bangalore who is having the copy of approved plan
of Sadananda Nagar Layout with him should have
observed this fraud and objected for registering this c
site. While shifting any site by the society in the
approved plan the society will have to obtain
permission from the commissioner TPM Bangalore
Development Authority which the Accused have
failed to do the same. BOA has not released this D
~ site at all.

11. The Complainant humbly submits Sri Gopal or any
of his family members are not eligible for any site
from the society since the society has already given
1.00 acre of land to their family way back in 1986 E
itself. The accused have made Sri Gopal as
Benami Owner and allotted a site in his favour at
Rs.200/- per square feet and sold the same through
him at Rs. 2,500 per square feet which is the
>- market value at Sadananda Nagar Layout and F
distributed Rs.28,00,000 which is a big booty
among all. This is a clear case of misuse of their
position as office bearers and directors, cheating,
fraud and working against the interest of the
society." G
7. The said complaint petition filed by the appellant was
.:..
registered as CC No. 22069 of 2007 in the Court of Xth
Additional. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore.
The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under
H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
' -
A Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC and issued
summons to the respondents.

8. Respondents thereafter filed an application under
Section 482 of the Code being Criminal Petition Nos. 838 and
910 of 2007 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore for
B
quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated by appellant.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the said petition has
been allowed by the High Court, holding:

"12. At the very outset, it may be mentioned that according
c to the complainant, there is no site bearing No. 509 in the
layout formed by the Society. It is also submitted that the
site bearing No. 142 is already sold but the boundaries of
that site is mentioned to the site bearing No. 509. The
complainant has not made the said Gopal allottee either
D as witness or an accused. Taking into consideration the
facts of the case, the first aggrieved person would be the 1
allottee Sri Gopal, as the site already sold is allotted to
him. It is stated that the site is sold by Mr. Gopal to
Hanumanthe Gowda. Thus, the said purchaser
E Hanumanthe Gowda would have been another aggrieved
party to sue the vendor Mr. Gopal. There is no material
placed on record to show that said Gopal has sold the site
to Mr. Gowda. There is no material placed on record to
show that said Gopal has sold the site to Mr. Hanumanthe
F Gowda for a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- and that money was ~

got distributed among the accused. All the averments
made in the complaint are nothing but imaginary. It is
crystal clear that the respondent - complainant wants to
settle his score against the accused/members of the
society by abuse of process of law. Learned Magistrate
G
erred in taking cognizance for the offence alleged against
the accused. It is a fit case for quashing the proceedings." :(

9. Mr. G.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of appellant would urge:-
H
K. ASHOKA v. N.L. CHANDRASHEKAR & ORS. 969
-) [S.B. SINHA, J.]
i. Appellant being a member of the society and A
having an interest in the running of the affairs thereof
could maintain the aforementioned complaint
petition.

ii. The allegations made in the complaint petition 8
disclosed a cognizable offence and, thus, the High
Court committed a serious error in passing the
impugned judgment.

iii. Although Gopal or for that matter
Hanumanthegowda had not been made as C
accused, they can be summoned at a later stage
wherefor such an application can be filed in the
inquiry or trial.

iv. Section 415 of the IPC providing for commission o
of an act of cheating also in respect of the property,
the High Court committed a serious error in opining
that no case has been made out for issuance of
summons against the respondents.

10. Mr. S.N. Bhat and Ms. Kiran Suri, learned counsel E
appearing on the behalf of the respondents, on the other hand,
would contend:

i. No deception within the meaning of Section 415 of
the IPC having been committed by the respondents, F
the learned Magistrate committed a serious error
of law in taking cognizance of an offence under
Section 420 of the IPC.

ii. The allegations made in the complaint petition even G
if they are taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety would merely disclose a case of
) )'
misuse of power making allotment in favour of
Gopal at a lower price, which being an offence
within the meaning of the Act, only a complainant
in terms of the provisions thereof was maintainable. H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
~
-
A iii. No reliance could be placed on the report of the
Joint Registrar by the learned Magistrate as the
matter is sub judice before the High Court.

iv. The complaint petition filed by the appellant is an
abuse of the process of the court inasmuch as he
B
filed the complaint petition after he lost the election. 1

11. It is now a well settled principle of law that the High
Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code may quash a criminal proceeding inter alia in the
c event the allegations made in the complaint petition even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety does
not disclose commission of a cognizable offence.

12. Some of the principles which would be attracted for ~'
~

D invoking the said jurisdiction have been laid down in Indian Oil
Corpn. vs. NEPC India Ltd. & ors. [(2006) 6 SCC 736], are: ~

"(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations
made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie
E constitute any offence or make out the case alleged
against the accused.

For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a
whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations.
Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the ~ '
F
material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness
of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while
examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear
G abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated with maladies/
...
malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where "'·
the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

H (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle
K. ASHOKA v. N.L. CHANDRASHEKAR & ORS. 971
- ; [S.B. SINHA, J.]
or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be A
used sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce
the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary
factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the
~ B
ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail,
the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the
complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so
bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely
necessary for making out the offence.
c
(v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil
wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong
as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a
contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action
for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal D
offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings
are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that
the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or
breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or
has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the E
criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations
in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not."

13. The primary allegation against the respondents in the
f ~ complaint petition does not make out an offence only under the
provisions of Section 109 of the Act as contended by Mr. Bhat F
but also other offences. A legal embargo in filing a complaint
is contained in Section 109(6) of the Act, which reads as
under:-

"109. (6). If any person-- G
) ,,_ (i) not eligible to become a member under Section 17
applies to a co-operative society for admission as
a member, or becomes a member, or after ceasing
to be a member under sub-section (2) of that
H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
'

A section acts as or exercises any rights or privileges
of a member of any such co-operative society;

(ii) exercise the rights of a member in contravention of
the provisions of Section 19;

B (iii) willfully fails to furnish the information or document 1
in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (3)
of Section 87;

(iv) grants a lease of the mortgaged property in
c contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 95,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three months or with fine which may extend to
three thousand rupees."

D 14. The allEigations made in the complaint petition disclose
~
commission of a cognizable offence. A conspiracy is said to
have been entered into for putting the society and
consequentially the members to a great loss. A conspiracy is
also said to have been hatched for the aforementioned purpose
E as a result whereof not only an allotment was made in favour
of a person who was not entitled thereto but also allotted plot
was assigned in favour of a third party for a huge sum.

15. Whether the allegations made in the complaint petition
are correct or not have to be considered during trial. The High ~
F Court in its impugned judgment proceeded inter alia on the
premise that the appellant has no locus standi. It may be true
that Gopal and Hanumanthegowda had not been impleaded as
accused but that by itself may not be a ground for quashing the
order of cognizance taken against the respondents. If the role
G played by them in regard to that part of the conspiracy is only
to make Gopal a member and got the land allotted in his name
by way of camouflage, appellant as a member of the society ~ '
had a locus standi to file a complaint.

H 16. The High Court furthermore, in our opinion, is not
K. ASHOKA v. N.L. CHANDRASHEKAR & ORS. 973
·" [S.B. SINHA, J.]
correct to opine that no document has been produced by the A
appellant to show that Gopal made an assignment of the land
in favour of Hanumanthegowda. Evidently, no document can be
produced for the purpose of showing that the actual amount of
.. consideration for the said transaction amounted to
Rs.28,00,000/- although ostensibly the amount of Rs.10,20,000/ B
~-
- has been shown to be amount of consideration in the
registered document. It may be true that the question as to
whether the report of the Registrar can be relied upon for the
purpose of showing as to how the act of cheating has been
committed by the respondents is a matter which must be c
considered at the time of trial but there cannot be any doubt
whatsoever that so long as the report is not set aside, the same
could form the basis for forming of an opinion at least for the
purpose of proceeding against the respondents that they
manipulated the records of the cooperative society to make D
unlawful gain for themselves and causing unlawful loss to the
society.

In Indian Oil Corpn. (supra) whereupon Ms. Suri has
placed strong reliance, this Court in the facts and circumstances
of the case therein although opined that no ca:;e of "criminal E
breach of trust" as defined under Section 405 of the IPC has
been made out, holding:

"32. The essential ingredients of the offence of 'cheating'
! ~ are: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or F
misleading representation or by other action or omission,
(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to
either deliver any property or to consent to the retention
thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person
to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit G
if he were not so deceived and which act or omission
causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person
~ ;<,
in body, mind, reputation or property."

Noticing some earlier decisions, it was opined:
H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
~

A "36. In this case, the complaints clearly allege that the
accused with fraudulent intention to cheat and defraud the ,.
IOC, had induced IOC to resume supply of aircraft fuel on
cash and carry basis, by entering into a further agreement
dated 20.9.1997 and undertaking to clear the outstanding
B amount of Rs. 18 crores approximately within the time
~
stipulated in the Hypothecation Agreements. The sum and
substance of the said allegation read with other averments
extracted above, is that NEPC India, having committed
default in Page 3170 paying the sum of Rs. 18 crores,
c entered into a fresh agreement dated 20.9.1997 agreeing
to clear the outstanding as per a fresh schedule, with the
dishonest and fraudulent intention of pre-empting and
avoiding any action by IOC in terms of the hypothecation
deeds to take possession of the aircrafts. Though the
~
supplies after 20.9.1997 were on cash and carry basis, the
D
fraudulent intention is alleged to emanate from the promise ~

under the said agreement to make payment, thereby
preventing immediate seizure (taking possession) of the
aircrafts by IOC. This allegation made in addition to the
allegation relating to ·removal of engines, has been lost
E sight of by the-High Court. All that is to be seen is whether
the necessary allegations exist in the complaint to bring
the case within Section 415. We are clearly of the view that
the allegations in the complaint constitute such an offence.
We are not concerned with the proof of such allegations
F or ultimate outcome of trial at this stage." 1

17. The opinion of the High Court that the averments made
in the complaint petition are imaginary is not based on any
material. Even assuming that the complainant had a score to
G settle against the accused, the same by itself may not be a
ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings particularly in
view of the fact that at least a prima facie case has been '>\ ...
established in view of the report of the Registrar.

18. Section 109 of the Act provides for commission of
H
K. ASHOKA v. N.L. CHANDRASHEKAR & ORS. 975
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
offences under the said Act. Therein, no statutory embargo has A
been placed for a court to take cognizance of an offence under
the provisions of IPC. If the allegations made in the complaint
petition or in the first information report make out a case under

- · the IPC, Section 111 of the Act, to which our attention has been
drawn, would constitute no bar for maintenance thereof being B
applicable only in respect of offences committed under the said
Act. The said statutory interdict therefore cannot be extended
in regard to commission of an offence under any other Act.

19. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned
judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained, which is set C
aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed. It is made clear
that we have not entered into the merit of the matter and, thus,
all contentions of the parties shall remain open.

l ~·
K.K.T. Appeals allowed.
.,
'

. .

1
l
-<