AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—There are concurrent findings of the Courts below that petitioner (accused) has committed an offence punishable u/s 109(9) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (''the Act'' for short). The law is fairly well settled that this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, does not sit as a Court of Second Appeal. This Court can interfere with the impugned judgment if it is demonstrated that the Courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.
The petitioner was the Managing Director of District Fruits Growers'' Marketing and Processing Cooperative Society Limited, Srinivasapura. As the affairs of the Society were not being properly managed, so also the accounts, the Society was superseded on 09.08.1996 and a special Officer was appointed. In the circumstances, petitioner was expected to hand over the charge and documents in his possession to the special officer. But petitioner has failed to do so. The matter was brought to notice of the Joint Director of Co-operative Societies who caused notice to petitioner on 10.03.1997 and 25.03.1998. There was no response from petitioner. Ultimately on 24.07.1998, the Joint Director ordered to lodge a complaint against petitioner u/s 109(3) of the Act.
The Courts below on proper appreciation of evidence, have recorded concurrent findings that petitioner (accused) failed to hand over documents to the special officer, pursuant to supersession of the Society on 09.08.1996.
I have heard Sri R.V. Shivananda Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, the learned Government Advocate.
The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner had handed over documents which were available with him to the special officer and some of the documents were with other Directors. Therefore, Courts below should not have held petitioner guilty of offence punishable u/s 109(9) of the Act.
The learned Government Advocate would justify the impugned judgment.
On reconsideration of evidence, I find that petitioner being the Managing Director of the Society should have handed over the charge and documents in his possession to the special officer, consequent to supersession of the Society on 09.08.1996. The petitioner did not hand over the documents. Therefore, matter was brought to the notice of Joint Registrar who caused first notice on 10.03.1997. However, there was no satisfactory reply from petitioner. Thereafter, second notice was caused on 25.03.1998 for which also there was no satisfactory response. Ultimately, on 24.07.1998, the Joint Registrar accorded permission to initiate complaint against petitioner.
Petitioner has relied on contents of Ex. D.1/list of documents dated 06.08.2001. This document was submitted in the year 2001. It is obvious that petitioner has not handed over all documents. The list does not contain all documents which were in possession of petitioner. Even otherwise, the documents handed over on 06.08.2001 after initiation of complaint would not absolve petitioner of his liability and he avoiding penal consequences u/s 109 of the Act. In the circumstances, there are no reasons to interfere with the judgments passed by the Courts below. The petition is dismissed.