( 1 ) Cri. W.P. 1111.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1111 OF 2009 Abhay S/o Narayan Raje and another .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents ... Mr.V.P.Latange,Advocate for the petitioners Mr.N.H.Borade,A.P.P.for respondent Nos.1 and 2. ... CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE,J. DATED : 22ND MARCH, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under sections 146(P) read with section 147(P) of the Co- Operative Societies Act. (“hereinafter be referred to as “the Act” The petitioners after their election to the Managing Committee of the Credit Society took over the management in May,2009. This society was accused of not getting their account statutorily audited, for previous three financial years. The Auditors for this purpose and calling the record were sending letters to the Management of the society since prior to May,2009. After May 2009, the petitioners themselves received one or two of such letters and the petitioners sent their reply. However, admittedly the petitioners did not submit the record of the society for the purpose of audit for the preceding three financial years. In view of this failure, the Auditor thought it fit to lodge the complaint against the ( 2 ) Cri. W.P. 1111.09 petitioners under section 146(p) of the Act, which reads as under- 146(p): any officer or member of a society destroys, mutilates, tampers with, or otherwise alters, falsifies or secretes or is privy to the destruction, mutilation, alteration, falsification or secreting of any books papers or securities or makes, or is privy to the making of any false or fraudulent entry in any register, book of account or document belonging to the society; or 2] The Auditor even obtained the sanction required for such prosecution under section 148(3) of the Act and now the complaint has been lodged at local Police Station. The Police submitted the affidavit saying that they are still investigating the case. They stated that during the course of investigation, they took away the entire record of the society from the petitioner’s custody. The charge-sheet is yet not filed, as the investigation is still not complete, this Writ Petition is rather premature, because the Police have still not decided to prosecute the petitioners. 3] On the other hand the petitioners have taken ambivalent stand on the issue involved in their explanation which they sent to the Auditors. It appears that the petitioners have not come out with a case that they on taking of the charge of the office of the society, had received the record and they did not find the account books for preceding three financial years. 4] The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the Judgment of Our High Court in the case of Dilip Bhagwantrao Ingole and others Vs. Commissioner of Co-operation and Registrar of Co- ( 3 ) Cri. W.P. 1111.09 Operative Societies Maharashtra State Pune and others reported in 2009(2) Mh.L.J Page No.471. I am afraid, this judgment would not support the contention of the petitioners. This Court in the reported case, in view of the peculiar provision of Section 75 of the Act, more particularly sub-section 4 and 5 held that the Registrar ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before issuance of such sanction. In absence of such clear stand, there is reason to believe that the investigation should go on to find out as to whether the petitioners are liable for prosecution. 5] Admittedly the sanction for prosecution under section 148(3) for alleged offence section 146(p) was granted by the Registrar without giving the petitioners a notice. But section 146(p) of the Act does not require any hearing to be given to the accused before sanction of the prosecution. Besides there is no similarity in the nature of the offences and the consequences. The offences enumerated under section 146 of the Act are more serious than the offence under section 75 of the Act. 6] I am, therefore, not inclined to allow this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. 7] The observations made shall not influence the Courts below at the time of hearing before charge. Sd/- [A.V.NIRGUDE,J.] MTK/ok