Case Note & Summary
The appellant, VSSN Mathigatta Co-operative Society, represented by its Development Officer D.T. Kempaiah, filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, M.L. Shivalingappa, the former secretary of the society. The respondent was accused of failing to hand over books, securities, cash, and other information after his term expired, based on an audit report. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on two preliminary objections: first, that the complaint was not in proper form as it was filed in the personal name of D.T. Kempaiah rather than the society; second, that no prior sanction under Section 111 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (KCS Act) was obtained. The High Court held that the defect in the form of the complaint was not fatal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in MMTC Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma Limited, (2002) 1 SCC 234, which states that such infirmity cannot be the basis for rejecting a complaint. Regarding the sanction requirement, the court interpreted Section 111 of the KCS Act and concluded that it applies only to prosecutions initiated by the Registrar or his subordinate officers, not to private complaints filed by the society. Therefore, the Trial Court's reasoning was erroneous. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal on merits, directing the Trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Complaint by Authorised Person - Defect in Form - The defect in the complaint being filed in the personal name of the authorised officer instead of the society is not fatal; the complaint can be treated as on behalf of the society. (Para 4)
B) Co-operative Societies - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 111 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - The requirement of prior sanction under Section 111 applies only to prosecutions initiated by the Registrar or his subordinate officers, not to private complaints filed by the society. (Para 5)
C) Criminal Appeal - Acquittal Set Aside - The High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal on merits, as the Trial Court erred in law. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused on the grounds that the complaint was not in proper form and that prior sanction under Section 111 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 was not obtained.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal dated 10.4.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli in C.C.No.79/2005, and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Defect in complaint form is not fatal
- Sanction under Section 111 of KCS Act is not required for private complaints
- Acquittal set aside
- Remand for fresh consideration
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (11) 7
Criminal Appeal No.671 of 2012
Shri. S. Gangadhara (for appellant), Shri. B. Pramod (for respondent)
The VSSN Mathigatta Co-operative Society, Represented by its Development Officer/authorised person, D.T.Kempaiah
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal for offences under Sections 109 and 110 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
Remedy Sought
The appellant society sought to set aside the acquittal of the respondent and for the complaint to be tried on merits.
Filing Reason
The respondent, former secretary of the society, failed to hand over books, securities, cash, and other information after his term expired, as revealed by an audit report.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court (Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli) acquitted the respondent in C.C.No.79/2005 on 10.4.2012 on grounds of defective complaint and lack of prior sanction under Section 111 of the KCS Act.
Issues
Whether the complaint being filed in the personal name of the authorised officer instead of the society is a fatal defect?
Whether prior sanction under Section 111 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 is required for a private complaint filed by the society?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the defect in the form of the complaint is not fatal and that sanction under Section 111 is not required for private complaints.
Respondent contended that the complaint was not maintainable due to improper form and lack of sanction.
Ratio Decidendi
A defect in the form of a complaint (filing in personal name instead of society) is not fatal and cannot be the basis for rejecting the complaint. The requirement of prior sanction under Section 111 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 applies only to prosecutions initiated by the Registrar or his subordinate officers, not to private complaints filed by the society.
Judgment Excerpts
The appeal in its form, is misconceived. In that, the case of the appellant is that he is authorised to represent one V.S.S.N. Mathigatta Co-operative Society Limited, Tumkur. The complaint is on behalf of the Society. It is apparently by inadvertence that the complaint is brought in the personal name of one D.T. Kempaiah who is said to have been authorised to bring the complaint in his capacity as a Co-operative Development Officer of Chikkanayakanahalli on behalf of the Society.
Insofar as the first question whether the complaint could have been rejected or the accused acquitted on the footing that the complaint was not brought through an authorised person or in the proper form, is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of MMTC Ltd . v. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma Limited, (2002) 1 SCC 234. has laid down that any such infirmity would not be the basis for rejecting a complaint.
The requirement of prior sanction under Section 111 of the KCS Act is only in respect of prosecutions initiated by the Registrar or his subordinate officers and not in respect of private complaints.
Procedural History
The appellant society filed a complaint against the respondent for offences under Sections 109 and 110 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The Trial Court (Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli) took cognizance and issued summons. The respondent appeared and raised preliminary objections regarding the form of the complaint and lack of sanction under Section 111. The Trial Court accepted these objections and acquitted the respondent on 10.4.2012 in C.C.No.79/2005. The appellant filed a criminal appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC before the High Court, which was allowed on 6.11.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 378(4)
- Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959: 109, 110, 111
