JUDGMENT This revisional petition along with connected revisional petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the F.I R. 2. Petitioner No. 1 in Cr. Rev. No. 1305 of 1996 had applied for loan to Ramkrishnapur Co-operative Bank, Charu Chandra Singha Lane, Howrah. At the relevant time, petitioner No.1 (in connected case) Samar Mukherjee was the Chairman, petitioner No.2 Kali Kinkar Banerjee was the Secretary and petitioner No.3 Biswanath Banerjee was Assistant Secretary of the said Bank. 3 On 6.12.95 a written complaint was filed in the Court of C.J.M., Howrah. The C.J.M., forwarded the complaint to Howrah Police Station for Investigation under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. The police registered F.I.R., on 15.12.95 and started investigation. 4. It has been alleged in the complaint filed on behalf of the Bank, that the Chief Executive Secretary and the Assistant Secretary of the Bank entered into criminal conspiracy and granted a loan of Rs.4 lacs to petitioner No. 1, in the connected revisional case i.e. Nirendra Nath Dey without having taken sufficient security. The equitable mortgage was illegal because the petitioner No.2 Goutam Dey was not full owner of the mortgaged property" The petitioners had forged and manipulated the minutes book of the Bank. They also failed to secure a deposit of Rs. 50,000/- from the debtor before sanctioning loan. The account payee cheque was dishonestly converted into a bearer cheque and thereby the petitioners had conspired to cheat the Bank and commit criminal breach of trust. 5. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. and the Investigation on the ground that Section 138 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, provides that any person committing an offence in respect of offences enumerated in 4th Schedule of the said act shall be liable to be prosecuted under this act notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the act or any other law for the time being in force. 6. It would suffice to say that the offences enumerated in 4th Schedule do not cover the offences of cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust. Hence Sec. 138 of the Co-operative Societies Act is not attracted in this case. 7. 6. It would suffice to say that the offences enumerated in 4th Schedule do not cover the offences of cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust. Hence Sec. 138 of the Co-operative Societies Act is not attracted in this case. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has also Invited my attention of Section 142 of the Act which runs thus :– “Punishment for corrupt practices.–Any Officer or employee or member of a Co-operative Society who– (a) sanctions or receives, as the case may be, any benamy loan, or (b) accepts or obtains or induces to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification as a motive or reward as is mentioned in Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, or (c) signs the minutes of any meeting of the Co-operative Society without attending such meeting, or (d) dishonestly or fradulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property of the Co-operative Society entrusted to him or under his control or allows any other person so to do. Shall be guilty of corrupt practices and shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine; Provided that the Court may for any special reason to be recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year.” 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the Co-operative Societies Act, is a complete code in itself and any violation thereof is punishable only under the Co-operative Societies Act and not Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel, have also argued that the Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 has received the assent of precedent. Hence in view of Article 254(2) of the Constitution, the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act of 1983 shall override the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 9. A similar point was raised before a Division Bench of this Court in case of (1) Soumendra Krishna v. State of West Bengal, 1992 Calcutta Crl. Hence in view of Article 254(2) of the Constitution, the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act of 1983 shall override the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 9. A similar point was raised before a Division Bench of this Court in case of (1) Soumendra Krishna v. State of West Bengal, 1992 Calcutta Crl. LJ (Cal) 148, and it was held that under Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, if the offence is punishable under two or more enactments, the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted or punished either or any of those enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. 10. It was observed thus :– “It is no doubt true that by Section 142 of the Act of 1983 a lesser and lenient punishment has been provided for the offence of corrupt practices, but this is not a ground to accept that an Officer, employee or member of a Co-operative Society is not liable to be prosecuted for an act or omission on his part if such act or omission constitutes a punishable offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. To bar the application of the provisions of Indian Penal Code in respect of the Officer, employee or member of a Co-operative Society will lead to disastrous consequences and the object of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act will be entirely defeated.” “In our view, the offence of corrupt practices, punishable under the Act of 1983 is not identical in essence, import and content with an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence of corrupt practices is a new offence created by the Act of 1983 and it does not and cannot repeal by implication or abrogate Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. In our view, having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above, there can be no objection to a trial and conviction under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code even if the accused is an Officer, employee or member of the Co-operative Society and governed by the Act of 1983.” 11. In our view, having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above, there can be no objection to a trial and conviction under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code even if the accused is an Officer, employee or member of the Co-operative Society and governed by the Act of 1983.” 11. It is also pertinent to note the intention of the legislature was clear when it stated in Section 139(4) of the Co-operative Societies Act : “Notwithstanding anything contained In the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any offence punishable under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) in respect of any movable property of a Co-operative Society shall be cognizable.” This amending provision clearly recognises that an Officer of Co-operative Society can be prosecuted for criminal misappropriation apart from the offences provided in Co-operative Act. Thus it is clear that the West Bengal Co• operative Societies Act, 1983, does not repeal Indian Penal Code. Since there is no repugnancy or conflict between the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Co-operative law, the investigation cannot be quashed. 12. A large number of authorities have been cited by the learned Lawyers on either side. I do not propose to discuss them, since Soumendra Krishna's case (supra) clinches the issue and I am bound to follow the same.’ Both the petitions are, therefore, devoid of substance and are dismissed. The stay stands vacated. The petitioners, who are noted already granted balls are given liberty to apply for anticipatory bail.