Y ANNAPURNAMMA Vs. CO OPERATIVE SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision case is directed against the order of the 6th Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, passed under Section 117 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, (Act VII of 1964), hereinafter referred to as "the Act."

(2.) The necessary facts are as follows :- The Ramalingeswara Multipurpose Society, Kanuru, was ordered to be wound up under Section 64(2) of the Act and a liquidator was appointed to manage the affairs of the Society. The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 in this revision case worked as Presidents of the Society prior of its winding up. The 2nd respondent worked from 1-10-1969 to 30-9-1970 as President. The petitioner Smt. Annapurnamma worked as President of the Society from 1-10-1970 to 1-7-1971 and the 3rd respondent herein worked from 2-7-1971 to 23-3-1975. The 1st respondent herein, who is the liquidator, issued, notice under Section 55 of the Act to these three ex-Presidents to produce and hand over the records. The petitioner stated that she has not taken charge of the records and they are with the 2nd respondent and that he did not hand over the records to her. Then the Liquidator obtained a certificate under Section 117 of the Act which declared that the records and the properties of the Society are in possession of the petitioner and respondent 2 and 3. Thereafter the Liquidator filed a petition under Section 117 of the Act in the lower Court. The 2nd respondent filed a counter alleging that no notice was issued by the Liquidator and on the election of the petitioner he handed over all the records to her. He produced an acknowledgment issued by the petitioner. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent filed a counter alleging that the 2nd respondent alone is responsible for the entire thing and that they are not aware of the winding up proceedings of the Society. The petitioner further stated that she resides at Khammam district with her daughter and therefore the 2nd respondent virtually was continuing as the President. The Liquidator was examined as P.W. 1 and the Co-operative Sub-Registrar who was appointed as enquiry officer was examined ad R.W. 1. Certain documents also have been proved. The petitioner however denied having passed any acknowledgment to the 2nd respondent as having received the records. The learned First Class Magistrate, after considering the entire material on record, held that there is no evidence that the 2nd respondent did not hand over the records to the petitioner and the responsibility lies on the petitioner to explain for the properties of the Society. He accordingly held that the records are in possession of the petitioner and directed her to hand over the records and the properties of the Society to the Liquidator under Section 117 of the Act.

(3.) Challenging the said order in this revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner herein contends that the certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar declaring that all the three ex-Presidents are in custody of the records and properties of the Society, is null and void inasmuch as the procedure contemplated under Section 117 was not followed. Even otherwise, the learned counsel contends, the Magistrate has no power to go behind the order of the Registrar and direct the petitioner alone to produce the records and properties, while the certificate declares that all the three ex-Presidents are having the custody of the records and properties of the Society.