IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18230 of 2000 Between: K. Maruti Mohan, S/o. Subramaniam, R/o. Kauthalam Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Cooperation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government Andhra Pradesh, REp. by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4 The District Cooperative Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 5 The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Adoni, Kurnool District. 6 The Kauthalam Large SCale Cooperative Society, Rep. by its President, Kauthalam Mandal, Kurnool District. 7 The Station House Officer, Kowthalam Police Station, Adoni, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ or Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the FIR No.48/2000 dated 19-9-2000 registered in P.S. Kowthalam at the instant of the 5th Respondent and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.23602 of 1995 dated 29-9- 1997 and pass such other order or orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SATYA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18230 of 2000 ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in F.I.R. No.48 of 2000 dated 19.09.2000. Petitioner states that while he was working as paid Secretary in the 6th respondent-Society, an inspection was made into the affairs of the society under Section 52 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and on the basis of the Inspection report of the fifth respondent dated 29.06.1994, it was found that the petitioner had misappropriated the funds of the 6th respondent-Society. Thereupon, the petitioner was issued surcharge proceedings dated 29.11.1994 alleging that he had misappropriated to a tune of Rs.1,09,548.77/-. The District Collector, vide proceedings in Rc.No.6114/92-L, dated 23.12.1994, had granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner and a complaint was lodged and a case was registered alleging offences under Sections 403 and 409 I.P.C. Subsequently, a revised notice dated 06.05.1995 was issued fixing liability of Rs.6,39,097.69/- on the petitioner. Thereafter, final orders were passed, under Section 60 of the Act, vide proceedings dated 24.06.1995 for recovery of Rs.6,39,097. Based on the surcharge proceedings dated 24.06.1995, the respondents initiated E.P.No.77/1999-2000 against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.6,39,097/-, which was the subject matter before this Court in W.P.No.17797 of 1999. The said writ petition was ultimately closed in view of the resolution of the Society to drop further action in E.P. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are required to be quashed mainly on the ground that there is no sanction from the competent authority to prosecute him as provided under Section 83(3) of the Act, wherein Section 83(3) requires previous sanction of the Registrar to institute prosecution against any person. He further contends that though some powers are delegated to the District Collector, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act, he is not delegated to exercise power under Section 83(3) of the Act. He also contends that though sanction issued by the District Collector on 23.12.1994 was without jurisdiction, the respondents had lodged complaint against the petitioner only on 19.09.2000 with abnormal delay of 5½ years. He further submits that in view of the fact that the Society itself had resolved not to enforce the surcharge proceedings, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted any further. This Court had granted interim orders as early as on 27.09.2000 and they are continuing all along. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Adoni, it is stated that the District Collector, Kurnool had granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner vide proceedings in R.C.No.6114/92-L dated 23.12.1994. Except the sanction order, no proceedings were referred to in the counter affidavit to prosecute the petitioner. Under Section 83 (3) of the Act, the sanctioning authority is only the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and the ‘Registrar’, as defined under Section 2(n) of the Act, means the Registrar of Cooperative Societies appointed under Section 3(1) and includes any other person on whom all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act are conferred. From the perusal of the subsequent orders issued in G.O.No.165 dated 27.03.1987, the powers of the Registrar are delegated to the various authorities under the Act, but, from the schedule, it is evident that no power, conferred under Section 83(3) of the Act, is delegated to the District Collector. In view of the fact that the District Collector is not vested with the power to grant sanction under Section 83(3) of the Act, prosecution cannot be continued against the petitioner. On this short ground, the writ petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in F.I.R. No.48 of 2000 dated 19.09.2000 are quashed. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Dt:21.04.2009 usd