IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9967 of 2005 Between: P. Sayoji Rao … Petitioner AND The Station House Officer, Nandivada, Krishna District, & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for Cooperation This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9967 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’), as illegal. The petitioner prayed for quashing of Crime No.9 of 2005 dated 14.03.2005. The petitioner was the Supervisor of Ilaparru Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (for short, ‘the Society’) from 27.03.2001 to 27.11.2003. An enquiry into the aﬀairs of the Society was held under Section 51 of the Act and on the basis of the report, respondent No.2 ﬁled a complaint, which was taken on ﬁle by respondent No.1 and registered as Crime No.9 dated 14.03.2005. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is averred that unless and until an order under Section 60 of the Act is passed, no prosecution can be initiated. Except raising the said plea, the petitioner has not substantiated the same with reference to any judicial precedents. I n D. Prabhakar Reddy vs. District Collector[1] this Court held that inspection report under Section 52 of the Act can be made the basis for launching prosecution, that the Registrar is conferred with power to issue directions in the interest of the cooperative movement or the public interest in order to prevent the aﬀairs of the Society from being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members and that the power to authorize initiation of prosecution can be traced to the power conferred on the Registrar under Section 4(2) of the Act. The report given either under Section 51 or 52 of the Act will give rise to initiation of proceedings to ﬁx both civil and criminal liability. Section 60 fastens civil liability on a person, who is found to have indulged in misuse or misappropriation of funds of the Society. Such a person is always liable for criminal prosecution either under the provisions of the Act or the Indian Penal Code. I may, however, hasten to add that even if prosecution is launched on the basis of a report submitted under Section 51 of the Act, the prosecution is required to prove the oﬀences alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, there is no need for the respondents to wait till the proceedings under Section 60 of the Act are initiated and concluded before initiating prosecution against a person against whom report under Section 51 or 52 of the Act is submitted. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.12945 of 2005 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.08.2008 ES [1] 1997 (1) ALD 500