(1.) After condonation of delay, the matter is coming up for admission today.
(2.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Niranjan Reddy submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Special judge for trial of offences under Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, Vijayawada in relation to Ex. P-2, is totally unsustainable, since misappropriating the amounts cannot be said to be part and parcel of the discharge of duties of the Secretary of a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society and hence, the view expressed by the said Court in this regard cannot be sustained. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 and would submit that the learned Magistrate should have accepted the evidence of P.W. 3, the enquiry officer and on the strength of the material available Exs. P-3 to P-6. The learned Magistrate should have held that prosecution had proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned counsel also pointed out to Ex. P-7, the enquiry report submitted by P.W. 3 and Ex. P-11 in this regard. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor at length.
(3.) This appeal is preferred against an order of acquittal made in C.C.No. 59 of 1995, dated 08-01-1999 by the Special Court for trial of offences under A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, Vijayawada. Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S. filed charge-sheet for an offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. The respondent herein accused S.V.R. Seshagiri Rao was the ex-secretary of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Machavaram from 03-9-1980 to 30-10-1981 and he was authorized to collect the loan amounts from loanees and debit the same in the bank and maintain cashbook. It is also the case of the prosecution that the said society was audited during the year 1981-82 and several irregularities were noticed which were brought to the notice of D.R. of Co-operative Societies and ordered an enquiry under Section 52 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act 1964 (herein after referred to as 'Act') by appointing an enquiry officer. Enquiry officer was of the opinion that accused misappropriated an amount of Rs. 6,199-70 ps. and basing on such report, sanction order to prosecute the accused was issued and Divisional Co-operative Officer, Narsaraopet gave a complaint against accused to police and Crime No. 35 of 1990 was registered under Section 409 I.P.C. the same was investigated and charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 409 I.P.C. The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gurajala which was transferred to the Special Court on question of jurisdiction after it is established.