DASTI THOMAS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision case gives rise to an interesting question of law relating to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (No, 7 of 1964) (hereinafter called 'the Act') to sanction prosecution under the Act. The material facts may briefly be stated.

(2.) The petitioner-accused is the President of the Lingapuram Forest Coupe contract society Ltd., Singavaram. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nandyal, by his order dt, January 24 1969 sanctioned an enquiry into the affairs of the Co-operative society Singavaram and directed P. W. 1, the Sub-Registrar, Nandval to conduct the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. Pursuant to the authorisation made by the Deputy Registrar, PW1 issued summons to the petitioner under Section 55 of the Act, requiring him to appear before him at 10 A M. on 10-2-69 at Singavaram with the cash balance, stocks of the society and all the documents, securities, registers account books and other records of the society to answer all questions relating to its working. The summons were served on the accused-petitioner on 5-2-69 as seen from Ex, P-2, the postal acknowledgment, As the petitioner did not turn up on 10-2-69 at Singavaram as per the summons issued by P W 1 and served on him, the Deputy Registrar, on the receipt of a report from P W 1, sanctioned the prosecution of the petitioner in his proceedings Re, 10145/68 dt. 13-3-69 and directed P W 1. Sri M J. Thomas, Co-operative Sub-registrar Nandyal to prefer a complaint before the court of the Addl judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Nandyal. Thereafter a complaint was filed by P W 1. In support of the prosecution case, PW1, the complainant and PW2, the village munsif of Singavaratn have been examined and Exs. P. 1 to P, 7 have been filed. Tne accused petitioner examined PW1, the son of PW2 in support of his plea that he attended the place of enquiry at Singivaram on 10-2-69 but P.W. 1 did not turn up till 5 P. M. and did not commit any offence punishable as per the complaint, The trial Magistrate, on a consideration of the entire material on record has found that the accused-petitioner absented himself at the enquiry scheduled to bejconducted by P.W, 1 at 10 AM. on 10-2-69 at the village 'Chavadi' in Singavaram village and found him guilty under Sec, 79 (1) (B) and (e) of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- under section 79 (2) of the Act: Aggrieved by that order, this revision petition has been filed. Sri P. Nagaraja Rao, for the petitioner, contends that the enquiry by PW1 on 10-2-69 at Singavaram is without jurisdiction as no valid sanction under Section 83 (3) of the Act, has been obtained. The Public Prosecutor contended contra.

(3.) The question that falls for consideration is whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Deputy Registrar is entitled to sanction prosecution under section 83 (3) of the Act. For a proper appreciation of the respective contentions of the parties, it is profitable and necessary to refer to the material provisions of the Act. Section 2 (n) defines Registrar thus : "Registrar" means the Registrar of Co-operative Societies appointed under Section 3(1) and includes any other person on whom all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act are conferred": Section 3 reads :