Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1971 DIGILAW 254 (KAR)

STATE OF MYSORE v. K. L. PATIL

1971-08-13

HONNAIH

body1971
( 1 ) THE question for consideration in this case is whether the criminal proceedings pending against one K. L. Patil in the Court of the Special first Class Magistrate, Davanagere, be stayed pending disposal of the dispute between him and the Society pending on the file of the Assistant registrar of Co-operative Societies. ( 2 ) THE accused in CC. No. 503 of 1970 filed an application under S. 344, crlpc. to stay the criminal proceedings pending disposal of the dispute on the file of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Magistrate, after taking into consideration the facts of the case, rejected the application. Against that order K. L. Patil preferred a revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. The learned Sessions Judge passed an order dt 15th April 1971, by which he made a reference to this court recommending that this Court may set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and the criminal proceedings be stayed as prayed for by k. L. Patil. ( 3 ) SECTION 344 Criminal Procedure Code provides that:" 344 (1 ). In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible and in particular when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. (1-A) If, from the absence of a witness, or any other reasonable cause, it becomes necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn any inquiry or trial, the Court may, if it thinks fit, by order in writing stating the reasons therefor, from time to time, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody. " (The other provisos to the section are not necessary for our purpose) ( 4 ) THE facts necessary for disposal of this reference may briefly be stated as follows: k. L. Patil was the President of Azad Mandakki Producers Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. , davanagere. for the year 1967-68. According to the audit report, during the period K. L. Patil was the President he was said to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 13,571-44. for the year 1967-68. According to the audit report, during the period K. L. Patil was the President he was said to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 13,571-44. On the complaint of the special auditor, the police investigated into the case and filed a charge sheet in the Court of the Special First Class Magistrate, Davanagere. Before the criminal proceedings were instituted against K. L. Patil, the Society filed a dispute before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies on 19-8-1969. The dispute was referred to the Arbitrator. K. L. Patil filed a petition before the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal for transfer of the dispute from the file of the Arbitrator. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies to decide the dispute himself. When the matter stood thus, K. L. Patil filed the present application under S. 344 Crpc. for stay of the criminal proceedings on the ground that after he ceased to be the President of the Society, he has not only paid Rs. 13,571-44 but also paid some more money to the Societv and as such he himself was entitled to get Rs. 41. 000 from the Societv. It is this dispute that is pending before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The case of the prosecution is that during the period K. L. Patil was the President, he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 13,571-44 Ps. and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 409 IPC. The dispute before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no bearing on the criminal proceedings. The power given to the Court under S. 344, crpc. is entirely discretionary and that is to be exercised judicially according to the circumstances of each case. When the Magistrate "has exercised the discretion in a particular way, it would not be correct for the higher Court to interfere in revision with such discretion. ( 5 ) UNDER S. 344 Crpc. a Magistrate can only adjourn a case from time to time, but, has no power to stay proceedings in his own Court. There is no hard and fast rule that a criminal case should be postponed pending the disposal of a civil suit from which the criminal case has arisen or with which it is intimately connected. a Magistrate can only adjourn a case from time to time, but, has no power to stay proceedings in his own Court. There is no hard and fast rule that a criminal case should be postponed pending the disposal of a civil suit from which the criminal case has arisen or with which it is intimately connected. Each case must be considered on its own merits, and the only general rule that can be stated is that every Court should be left as far as possible to dispose of the cases on its file with the utmost speed. It is of the 'utmost importance that criminal cases should be brought to a speedy termination and it is not expedient that criminal proceedings should be adjourned indefinitely until the decision of a pending civil suit or dispute pending before the Assistant registrar of Co-operative Societies. The correct principle is that unless the finding of a Civil Court will dispose of that point arising in the criminal case, the Magistrate trying the latter case should not exercise his discretion in favour of an adjournment of the proceedings pending before him for the purpose of enabling him to have the benefit of the finding of the decision of the Civil Court or the finding of the Assistant Registrar. In substance, as a general rule, it is not desirable to stay proceedings in a criminal case or to go on adjourning the case from time to time on the ground that a civil suit is pending between the parties in a Civil Court or before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in the absence of anything to say that the inquiry before the Magistrate is in any way likely to prejudice the trial of the civil suit or dispute before the Assistant Registrar or that the criminal complaint has been filed to coerce the accused to enter into a compromise regarding the dispute. Dealing with the question, the Supreme Court in M. S. Sherrif v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397 has stated thus:"as between the civil and the criminal proceedings the criminal matter should be given precedence. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is not a relevant consideration. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is not a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration is the likelihood of embarrassment. Another factor which weighs with the Court is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure, that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient, to stay it in order to give precedence to prosecution ordered under S. 476. " ( 6 ) FROM the facts of this case it is clear that during the period the alleged misappropriation took place. K. L. Patil was the President. The dispute that is pending before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies is in respect of a claim made by K. L. Patil that a sum of rs. 41,000 is due to him from the Society itself. When that is so, there is nothing in common between the two proceedings. That being so, the Magistrate was justified in exercising the discretion rejecting the application filed by K. L. Patil. ( 7 ) IN the result, I decline to accept the reference and confirm the order passed by the Special First Class Magistrate, Davanagere. --- *** --- .