2013 (8) TMI 1183 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the interpretation of the applicability of specific laws over general laws, the consideration of ingredients of the offence of cheating, and the determination of whether the petitioner should face trial for specific sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Interpretation of specific laws over general laws:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the offence in question should fall under Section 118 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, rather than under the Indian Penal Code sections 409, 420, and 477A. It was contended that the special law should prevail over the general law. However, the court found that the nature of the allegations in the FIR did not strictly align with the parameters of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. The court held that the petitioner's prosecution for the offence under Section 420/477A of the Indian Penal Code was justified.

Consideration of ingredients of the offence of cheating:
The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that while the petitioner could not be prosecuted for both Section 409 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code simultaneously, the elements of the offence of cheating were present. It was argued that the petitioner's prosecution for the offence under Section 420/477A of the Indian Penal Code was well-founded based on the FIR and charge-sheet of the case.

Determination of trial for specific sections of the Indian Penal Code:
After hearing both sides and examining the impugned order, charge-sheet, and material on record, the court found that a prima facie case existed for the petitioner's prosecution under Section 420/477A of the Indian Penal Code. The court ruled that the petitioner could not be prosecuted simultaneously for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and discharged the petitioner for that offence. However, the court held that the petitioner should face trial for the offences under Section 420/477A of the Indian Penal Code. The petition and application were disposed of accordingly, with a refrain from commenting on the merits of the case to avoid prejudicing the petitioner at trial.