THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.5548/2007 Dt,29-7-2010 1. Gali Arul Raju and others ..Petitioners/A-2 to A-5 V. 1. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.5548/2007 ORAL ORDER The petitioners who are arrayed as A-1 to A-5 in CC No.407/2007 on the file of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, charged with offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420,468 and 471 IPC and Sec. 6 r/w 23 of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act,1976, (for short “the FCR Act”) invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., by filing the present petition to quash the proceedings initiated against them. The allegations levelled against the petitioners and A-1 would show that M/s. Dayananda Nilayam Society for Social Development, Kanigiri, Prakasham District (A-1) (for short “the Society”) was registered under the provisions of Registration of Societies Act, 1860, by the petitioner No.1/A-2. The said Society was also registered with the Director, Foreign Exchange Regulation Authority under Section 3(A) of the FCR Act to receive funds from foreign sources for the purpose of implementing projects for rehabilitation for poor and disabled children. The petitioner No.1/A-2 worked as Parish Priest in Kanigiri RCM Church during he period 1985 to 1992. Petitioner No.2/A-3 who has been working as Parish Priest at Tallapalem RCM Church of Nellore diocese joined the Society as Secretary-cum-Treasurer in the year 1994 and worked from 14-2-1994 to 25-5-2006. The Society received a total amount of Rs.13,69,23,662-15 during the financial years 1995-96 to 2005-06 from foreign sources, which includes Rs.5,15,72,877-16 contributed by Charitable Trust “ENABLE”, U.K. A-2 and A-3 fabricated documents, such as receipts of a fictitious firms, and shown fake payments. A-2 to A- 4 misappropriated the funds received from foreign sources and diverted the same for other purposes than the purpose for which amount is received from foreign sources, and they have committed various offences as detailed in the charge sheet. Sri D. Ramalinga Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on the letter dt.5-8-2006 addressed by the Assistant Director (FCRA), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi to the Superintendent of Police, Prakasham District, Ongole, wherein it was stated that he has been authorized to inspect the accounts/records of the Society; matter is under investigation by the Ministry of Home Affairs and requested the Superintendent of Police, Prakasham District, Ongole to handover the photocopies of the records and accounts of the Society seized by police so as to enable him to carry out the inspection in a conclusive manner and submit a report and since the matter is under examination by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is a nodal Ministry to deal with FCRA registered associations, and if required the outcome of the enquiry will be intimated and further stated that Section 27 of the Act puts bar on the courts to take cognizance of any offences under the Act except with the prior sanction of the Central Government, contends that in spite of writing such letter dt.5-8-2006, sanction was given by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India on 13-4-2007 without considering the letter addressed by the Assistant Director dt. 5-8-2006, and therefore, sanction of prosecution of the petitioners shows total non-application of mind, and under the erroneous sanction order, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted. To substantiate the same, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in MANSUKHLAL VITHALDAS CHAUHAN V. STATE OF GUJARAT (AIR 1997 SC 3400). The facts in the said case are misplaced to the facts in the present case. Before taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate under obligation to see whether sanction is required under the relevant enactment and such sanction was given by the competent authority and the allegations made in the charge sheet make out any offence to be tried, and it is not for the Magistrate to go into the correctness or otherwise of the sanction to prosecute the offenders. In view of the same, it is not a fit case to quash the prosecution on the ground that the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind while issuing sanction order to prosecute the petitioners. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to avail remedies as are available under law, if any, before the appropriate forum. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.29-7-2010 kmr