http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DEVI SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/05/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, K.T. THOMAS

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Order dated  7.0.1996 is  recalled. We  have heard Shri Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.      The  only   question  is;   whether  the  appellant  as President of the Sardarajanti Kalan Cooperative Agricultural Service Society  along with  other two  persons, namely, the Secretary and  Treasurer, is  liable to account for a sum of Rs. 65,726,59. It is an admitted position that Tara Chand is Ex-Secretary, the  appellant, the  Ex-President  and  Sardar Singh is  the  Ex-Cashier.  The  dispute  arose  from  award proceedings under  the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act. On a reference  made to  the Registrar, the matter was referred to the  concerned officer  for enquiry and necessary action. On the  basis thereof,  after  notice  to  the  parties  and conduct of  the due  enquiry, the  award come  to be  passed wherein it  was held  that the  three officers,  namely, the appellant as  President, Tara  Chand as Secretary and Sardar Singh as  Cashier were  jointly and individually responsible for the  unaccounted sum  of Rs.65.726.59. The Secretary and the Cashier  had allowed  the award  to  become  final.  The appellant carried the matter in appeal, which was confirmed; the writ  petition,  filed  consequently,  stood  dismissed. Thus, this appeal by special leave granted by this court.      Shri Maheshwari,  learned counsel  for  the  appellant, contends that  the  appellate  authority  proceeded  on  the premise that the appellant had admitted the misappropriation and accordingly  it confirmed  the award.  This Court called for the  record on  perusal thereof, found that there was no such admission.  Therefore, leave was granted. The appellant having not  admitted the misappropriation, it must be proved that the appellant was a party thereto. It is argued that in the absence  of such  a proof, he cannot be saddled with any liability for  the   unaccounted money to the members of the Society. We find no force in the contention. It is true that the Registrar,  who conducted  the enquiry,  had  noted  the admission. The  admission was  only in relation to the joint purchase of a tempo by the three persons for use as a public carrier and  the income derived therefrom was required to be distributed to  the members  of the  Society. That  does not amount to  admission by  the appellant  and others that they

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

misappropriated the  amount. It  is seen  from the  evidence that certain amount, at the rate of Rs.1500/- to each of the members was  credited towards purchase of lempo and there is an admission  by the appellant and others that the tempo was purchased. Once  it is  proved that  the tempo  was actually purchased, the  burden is  on the said office bearers of the society to  account for  the profits  derived by  its use as public carriage. The finding is that they have not accounted for. It  is true  that under the bye-laws of the Society, as placed before us, the responsibility is of the Treasurer and the Secretary.  But the  appellant being the president bears the overall  responsibility.  Being  the  President  of  the Society, he  owes the  collective  responsibility  with  the Treasurer and  the Secretary  for  its  accounting.  In  the absence of  accounting of  the funds, necessary inference is that there  was improper  management of  the institution and thereby they  are liable  for making good the loss caused to the Society  and the  members. The  crime registered against them is  in   respect  of  an  offence;  but  the  surcharge proceedings are for unaccounted money by the officers or the persons responsible  therefor. Being  the President  of  the Society, the  appellant bears  the collective responsibility to have  the accounting  properly done  of the  funds of the Society. The omission thereof constitutes misappropriation.      It is  then contended  that certain  documents had  not been  supplied  to  the  appellant  and,  therefore,  it  is violative of  the principles  of natural  justice. We do not find any  force in  the contention at  this distance of time for the  reason that  it  involves  investigation  into  the questions of facts.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.