The Malappuram Co-Operative … vs Reserve Bank Of India

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 4252 of 2003()


1. THE MALAPPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, MALAPPURAM
3. N.ABDUL RAZACK, NADUTHODI HOUSE,
4. L.MADHAVAN, "PRASAD BHAVAN",
5. VEEKSHANAM MUHAMMED
6. K.ABOOBACKER, KODIYADAN HOUSE,
7. M.VIJAYAKUMAR, "SREEVALSAM", KAVUNGAL,
8. P.HAMZA, S/O. ABOOBACKER HAJI,
9. T.RAYINKUTTY, S/O. ALAVIKUTTY,
10. P.VENUGOPAL, PARAYIL HOUSE,
11. P.M.MUHAMMEDALI, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI
12. K.JAYAKRISHNAN, KARUMATHIL HOUSE,
13. N.PADMINI, NAMBOLAN HOUSE,
14. P.P.PATHUTTY, NADUTHODI HOUSE,
15. N.RAJENDRAN, ARANGODAN HOUSE,

                        Vs



1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :RAMAKUMAR (SR.)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

 Dated :/  /

 O R D E R
                              A.K. Basheer, J.

                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                     Crl.M.C.No. 4252 of 2003-B

                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

              Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008.

                                    ORDER

Sri.K.Ramakumar, learned senior counsel submits that the

prosecution launched by respondent No.1 against petitioners under

Annexure A complaint is wholly incompetent and without

jurisdiction. He contends that section 95 of the Co-operative

Societies’ Act is an embargo and interdiction in proceeding against

the petitioners. According to the learned senior counsel, petitioners

are prepared to take up this contention before the trial court. He

further submits that petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this

Crl.M.C with liberty to raise the above and all other contentions

available to them. The limited prayer is to issue a direction to the

trial court to decide the question of maintainability of the complaint

as a preliminary point. He further prays that till such a decision on

the question of maintainability of the complaint is taken by the trial

court, all further action in the matter may be directed to be kept in

abeyance.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the prayer as

made above is allowed. Crl.M.C is dismissed as withdrawn in the

above terms. The court below shall decide the question of

maintainability as a preliminary point, if such a contention is raised

by the petitioners. It is made clear that I have not considered the

merit of any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.

A.K. Basheer
Judge.

an.