HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.6199 of 2009 15th March, 2010 Between :- Mathi Ratnarao .. Petitioner – A.3 And The State of A.P. Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents-Complainant HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.6199 of 2009 ORDER:- Heard the Counsel. 2. The 3rd respondent was impleaded and it is stated that notice had been served on 2nd and 3rd respondents. None represent 2nd and 3rd respondents. 3. The allegations levelled in the chargesheet are that the petitioner as a Vice-President (who was figured as A3) along with A.1 – K. Simhachalam, President, A.2-TV Ramana, Secretary President and A.4 – Yerrajirao, Treasurer of the Visakhapatnam City Police Employees Cooperative Credit Statutory (hereinafter called as ‘the Society) who were elected on 11-10-2002 by the new body, have committed certain irregularities in gross violation of the procedure contemplated under the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter, in short, referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) and the Bye-laws framed by the Society for its administration and facilitated loans etc., to the members and that A.1 to A.4 conspired together and swindled the money of the Society and had unlawful gain to a tune of rs.27,25,130/- by swindling the accounts of the Society. 4. It is stated by the petitioner that the perusal of the allegations made in the chargesheet even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety did not constitute any prima facie offence made out against the petitioner herein. As such the said chargesheet is not maintainable against the petitioner and contrary to law. 5. Further it is stated that the allegations levelled in the chargesheet are itself self-explanatory to say, that the said allegations are the disputed facts touching the constitution, management or business of the Society which attracts the provisions of the Act. 6. Sections 121, 60 and 61 of the Act also had been referred to. Section 83(3) of the Act specifically says about the according of sanction. Strong reliance was placed on the decision in M.GANAPATHI RAJU v. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GAJUWAKA[1]. 7. In the light of the decision placed before this Court, this Court is satisfied that the proceedings cannot be further proceeded with in view of the legal position so far as the proceedings relate to petitioner-A.3. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed so far as it releates to petitioner-A.3. ______________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 15th March, 2010 smr [1] 2003 (3) APLJ, 13 (SN)