IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20015 of 2007 Between: Smt. Bommareddy Kamala Kumari … Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Parmarru, Krishna District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C. Raghu Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri M.V. Bharati The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20015 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to quash Crime No.102 of 2007. The petitioner is an Ex-Sarpanch of Pamarru Village and Mandal, Krishna District. After expiry of her term in August 2006, respondent No.3 issued notice calling upon her to pay Rs.3,56,865/- with interest on the allegation that the said sum was misappropriated under SGRY and Srujala Dhaara funds. Simultaneously, on a complaint given by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Gudivada, respondent No.2, the abovementioned criminal case was registered for the offences under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. In the present writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing of the FIR mainly on the ground that respondent No.2 was not competent to lodge the complaint. At the hearing, Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on Section 136 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”) in support of the petitioner’s plea. Section 136, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: “136. Persons empowered to prosecute:- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no person shall be tried for any offence against this Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder, unless complaint is made within twelve months of the commission of the offence by the police, the executive authority or person expressly the executive authority or person expressly authorized in this behalf by the Gram Panchayat or executive authority.” From the above reproduced provision, it is clear that no person shall be tried for any offence under the Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder unless two ingredients are satisfied, namely (i) the complaint is given within 12 months of the commission of the offence, and (ii) such a complaint was made by a police, the executive authority or person expressly authorized by the gerampanchayat or the executive authority. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home relied on proceedings dated 11.06.2007 issued by the District Collector, Krishna. A perusal of the said proceedings shows that the District Collector has authorized respondent No.2 to file a criminal case. Under Section 136, only 3 categories of persons are competent to file a complaint, namely, police, executive authority or person expressly authorized by the grampanchayt or executive authority. Section 2(12) of the Act defines “Executive Authority” as Panchayat Secretary appointed to each Grampanchayat. Though the Collector is the head of the Panchayat wing in the District, he is not included in the definition of “Executive Authority”. Therefore, it cannot be said that the authorization given by the Collector in favour of respondent No.2 amounts to the authorization given by the executive authority within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act. Hence, the petitioner is not liable for being tried in view of the provisions of Section 136 of the Act. The FIR is therefore quashed and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.25810 of 2007 and WVMP.No.2633 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.07.2010. ES