THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23571 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ more appropriately a WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the respondents particularly the 4th respondent in filing complaint, dated 23.03.2006 against the petitioner before the Hon’ble Addl.J.F.C.M., Yellamanchili in Crime No.41 of 2005 as illegal and set aside the said complaint against the petitioner.” The third respondent – Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/Divisional Cooperative Officer, Yellamanchili (Post & Mandal), Visakhapatnam District, lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Yellamanchili (Rural) Police Station, Yellamanchili (Post & Mandal), Visakhapatnam District, on 06.07.2005, alleging that one D.Balabhadra Raju, Son of late Janaki Rama Raju, Ex-Secretary of Lakkavaram Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited at Pulaparthy, misappropriated an amount of Rs.6,76,530/- belonged to the said society during the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.12.2001, having collected interest from the loanees, not entered in the relevant books, introduced benami loans and utilized the amount for his personal use, and requested to take action. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.41 of 2005 against the said D.Balabhadra Raju, for the offences under Sections 406 and 408 IPC and investigation was taken up. In the said crime, about 12 witnesses were examined and statements were recorded. From the evidence collected in the process of investigation, it came to light that there is involvement of the petitioner also, as such, his name was added as A.2 in the crime, he was arrested on 23.03.2006 and was remanded to judicial custody and later, he was enlarged on bail. The police have started investigation against the petitioner also. At the verge of completion of investigation, this writ petition is filed. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioner that there is no order passed against him showing his involvement in the proceedings initiated either under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) or under Section 60 of the Act, on the allegation of misappropriation. It is also the case of the petitioner that to prosecute him, prior sanction is required as per Section 83 of the Act and in the absence of any such sanction, there is no basis for implicating him in the aforesaid crime and taking further steps to prosecute him. There are two counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter-affidavits, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that though initially complaint was lodged against D.Balabhadra Raju, when the investigation was taken up in Crime No.41 of 2005, the witnesses deposed about the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence, as such, he was added as A.2 in the said crime. It is further stated that for the purpose of investigation, specimen handwritings of the accused were sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, on 27.04.2006 for necessary analysis and opinion. It is further stated that the investigation is completed. It is also stated that the Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam, in his letter, dated 28.07.2006, requested the first respondent - Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, for issuance of prosecution orders against the petitioner. Accordingly, the first respondent issued sanction of prosecution orders, dated 21.11.2006, in proceedings bearing Rc.No.24599/2006/PACS-I. It is contended by Sri K.Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any inquiry under Section 51 of the Act and also order passed under Section 60 of the Act, it is not open for the respondents to prosecute the petitioner. It is further contended by him that the sanction order can be passed only based on the finding recorded in the inquiry proceedings, as such, in the absence of any inquiry, there is no basis for grant of sanction against the petitioner for prosecution. It is also contended by him that in any event, there is no prior sanction within the meaning of Section 83(3) of the Act, as such, the prosecution initiated against the petitioner is contrary to the said provision and the complaint lodged against him is liable to be quashed. With reference to the above said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is to be noted that when the complaint was lodged by the third respondent on behalf of the society, initially, the petitioner was not shown as accused and the crime was registered only against Sri D.Balabhadra Raju. It is not in dispute that so far as Sri D.Balabhadra Raju is concerned, sanction orders were already obtained to prosecute him. When the evidence collected during the investigation disclosed that there is involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence, the petitioner was added as Accused No.2 and the Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam, addressed the first respondent for grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioner. As evident from the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, on the letter, dated 28.07.2006, addressed by the Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam, sanction orders were passed by the first respondent on 21.11.2006 vide proceedings bearing Rc.No.24599/2006/PACS-I. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no basis for passing sanction orders to prosecute the petitioner, as there is no inquiry conducted under Section 51 of the Act or any other proceedings initiated under Section 60 of the Act. But, from a perusal of various provisions under the Act, it is obvious that there is no such pre-requisite for the purpose of investigation into the complaint lodged against the employees of the society. In any event, sanction orders are not subject matter of the writ petition, as such, there is no need to record finding as to the validity of sanction orders. As much as sanction was already accorded to prosecute the petitioner also, the petitioner can prove his innocence only during trial but at this stage of investigation, he cannot seek quashing of complaint against him. Even under Section 83(3) of the Act, no prosecution shall be instituted without previous sanction of the Registrar. In this case, it is to be noticed that the matter is at the stage of investigation and even before filing final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the petitioner approached this Court. In view of order of sanction passed by the first respondent, it cannot be said that there is no sanction within the meaning of Section 83(3) of the Act to prosecute the petitioner. As the first respondent has already passed orders against the petitioner also sanctioning prosecution and the crime is at the stage of investigation, I do not find any illegality to quash the proceedings at this stage as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court rendered in Dr.S.SUBRAMANIA IYER v. THE SECRETARY, THE KARAIKUDI COOPERATIVE TOWN BANK, KARAIKUDI[1] but having regard to the fact situation, the said judgment would not render any assistance to the case of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th FEBRUARY, 2011. kvni [1] 1974 (1) The Madras Law Journal Reports 441