The Single Judge dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court held that material in the form of an enquiry report and surcharge proceedings established misappropriation of funds. The Court found the statutory material sufficient to deny bail.
Criminal Petition No.1721 of 2012 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.1721 of 2012
ORDER:-
The petitioner apprehends arrest in Crime No.19 of 2012 of Cahllapalli P.S., registered for the offences under Sections 405 and 408 of I.P.C.
The accusation made against the petitioner is that while he was working as Secretary of Puritigadda Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society resorted to misappropriation of society funds. An enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act came to be conducted. Basing on the enquiry report, surcharge proceedings have been issued against the petitioner fixing his liability at Rs.32,03,149.47 P.S. A report came to be presented by the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Machilipatnam, to the Station House Officer, Challapalli, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner misappropriated the society funds. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.19 of 2012 came to be registered for the offences under Section 405 and 408 of I.P.C. Hence, this petition by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the sanction proceedings have not been issued by the Registrar and therefore initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner cannot be said to be legal. A further submission has been made that the petitioner is aged about 63 years and the registration of the crime is based on the enquiry report, in which case custodial examination of the petitioner may not be required.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State opposed the application.
Under Section 2(n) of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, ‘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. A reading of the definition of ‘Registrar’ indicates that it is inclusive definition. The report presented by the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Machilipatnam, is based on the enquiry conducted under Section 51 of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act. The enquiry revealed that the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs.32,03,149.47 P.S. Surcharge proceedings also have been issued against the petitioner. The enquiry report reveals that the petitioner made fictitious payments to a tune of Rs.15,68,531/- Such is the material placed on record, the petitioner does not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 21st February, 2012 smr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted where a criminal case is registered based on an enquiry report under the Cooperative Societies Act alleging misappropriation of funds.
Whether the lack of formal sanction proceedings by the Registrar renders the initiation of criminal proceedings illegal.
The sufficiency of material placed on record, including the enquiry report and surcharge proceedings, to deny anticipatory bail.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
The petitioner
The State
B.Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
