THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1773 of 2010 Date:30th November, 2011 Between: Nali Nagabhushanam S/o.Venkateswar Rao ..... Petitioner/Accused AND The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1773 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Nali Naghabhushanam, who is an accused in C.C.No.559 of 2004 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, to quash the proceeding therein against him. 2. The petitioner was the President of the Machilipatnam Municipal Employees Mutually Aided Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Machilipatnam. Enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, came to be conducted. Basing on the enquiry report, a complaint came to be filed against the petitioner before the Station House Officer, Robertsonpet Police Station, Machilipatnam, who registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2004. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be presented before II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as C.C.No.559 of 2004. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the accused seeking the relief stated supra. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the surcharge proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 60(1) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, ended in dismissal and therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.559 of 2004 amounts to abuse of process of Court. Learned counsel took me to the order, dated 01.09.2005, passed in O.A.No.132 of 2004 on the file of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, at Vijayawada. By laying much stress on the said order, the learned counsel contends that Section 51 enquiry report is deemed to have been set aside. 5. I have gone through the order, dated 01.09.2005, passed in O.A.No.132 of 2004, by the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada. The action initiated in surcharge proceedings basing on Section 51 enquiry report came to be set aside on the ground that the enquiry report is required to be considered by the Director or Deputy Registrar of Mutually Aided Cooperative Credit Society. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the order passed in O.A.No.132 of 2004 on the file of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada, which reads as hereunder: “ As already discussed above, by the date of conversion of the Co-operative Society into Mutually Aided Co-operative Credit Society section 51 enquiry was pending. Section 51 enquiry was completed by 24.11.1998 in fact the Section 51 enquiry report was submitted on 19-3-1999. Therefore, by the date of Section 51 enquiry report, dated 19.3.1999 the Municipal Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited was not in existence and it was converted into Mutually Aided Co-operative Credit Society. The course opened to the Registrar is to submit the Section 51 enquiry report to the Director or Deputy Registrar of Mutually Aided Cooperative Society or file the dispute directly before the Tribunal for a decision, basing on the Audit report or the Section 51 enquiry report. But not to issue surcharge u/s.60(1) of the Act 7 of 1964. Therefore, the very impugned surcharge order passed by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction, null, void and inoperative.” 6. A reading of the above order does not indicate that Section 51 enquiry report has been set aside or any observation has been made that the accusations leveled against the petitioner with regard to misappropriation of the amounts have not been based on material. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the proceedings against the petitioner, consequent on the order passed by the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, at Vijayawada, in O.A.No.132 of 2004, cannot be continued has no substance. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:30th November, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1773 of 2010 Date:30th November, 2011