Sri. P. Jaya Chandra Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3180 Tel

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

           CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7157 and 7372 of 2023

 COMMON ORDER:

       Since the issue involved in both the Criminal Petitions is

 one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of by this

 common order.

 2.    These two Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482

 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.110 of 2018

 on the file of Hon'ble XII Additional Chief Metropolitan

 Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioners -

 accused Nos.1,2,3,5,7,8,9,11,12,13 and 22 and accused No.17

 respectively.


 3.    The brief facts of the case are that on 25.02.2023, respondent

No.2 lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer,

Charminar Police Station, against the petitioners herein and other

accused alleging that the Registrar of Mutually Aided

Cooperative Societies (MACS), Hyderabad vide proceedings

No.11864/2011/HR-4 dated 22.02.2012 and 25.05.2012 has

ordered an enquiry under Section 29(2) of Andhra Pradesh

Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 (for short, 'A.P.

MACS Act 1995') into the affairs of the A.P. High Court

Employees Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society

Limited, Hyderabad (for short, the 'Society') and appointed the

Divisional Cooperative Officer, Secunderabad Division,

Hyderabad, as an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry and

submit a report about the functioning and gross violation of

provisions of the A.P. MACS Act, 1995 committed by the

Adhoc/Managing Committee and its office bearers with special

reference to the following issues/allegations commencing from

the date of registration i.e., 29.07.2003.

1. The Adhoc Managing Committee failed to conduct election as per Section 23(i) of the A.P. MACS Act, 1995.

2. The Management existed up to the year 2007 failed to arrange to get its account audited as per statutory provisions under Section 27 of the A.P. MACS Act, 1955.

3. As per the A.P. MACS Act, 1955, the Society should maintain certain Accounts/Records. The Managing Committee failed to discharge their duties specified under Section 23 of the A.P. MACS Act, 1955.

4. The Managing Committee failed to file annual returns with the Registrar as per Section 34 of the A.P. MACS Act, 1955.

5. The Managing Committee violated the terms and conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.633 dated 17.11.1992 at Admn (Service) Department.

6. Annual Returns U/s. 34 of the A.P. MACS Act, 1955 to be submitted every year to the Registrar are not furnished from the year 2003-07.

7. The Managing Committee existing as on 2007 failed to handover expenditure vouchers worth Rs.4,83,826.00 for the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10.

8. Without expenditure vouchers, proper cash book and other books of accounts the Managing Committee arranged for Audit or the accounts the Managing Committee arranged for Audit of the accounts of the society for the year 2003-2010.

9. As seen from the bank statements the society booked heavy expenditure of Rs.54.17 lakhs incurred during the year 2010-11 without observing the liabilities of the society and procedure and rules in vogue.

10. The society failed to produce the plans and Estimates Measurement Book Records bills for the civil works undertaken by the society as well as contractor and approval of the Managing committee not shown for verification.

4. The enquiry officer conducted an enquiry and submitted a

report dated 20.06.2012 to the Registrar of MACS, Hyderabad.

However, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and

Agriculture addressed a letter to the Registrar, MACS,

Hyderabad, informing that this Court vide order dated 18.09.2012

in W.P.No.29232 of 2012 directed the District Cooperative Officer,

Hyderabad (U) to initiate steps for prosecution of delinquents on

the basis of the findings in enquiry report dated 20.06.2012.

Pursuant to the said order dated 18.09.2012, the office of the

District Cooperative Officer filed a complaint in the Charminar

Police Station. On the basis of the said complaint, the police

registered a case in Crime No.286 of 2012 dated 18.10.2012. Later,

the order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of

this Court in W.P.No.29232 of 2012 was set aside by the Division

Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 06.12.2012 in

W.A.No.1366 of 2012. In the said judgment dated 06.12.2012, the

Division Bench of this Court held that the Court cannot pass any

mandatory order directing the officials to take or initiate

proceedings against the persons found responsible for

commission and omissions, although under the provisions of the

Act itself there are other measures provided entirely within the

domain of the authority under the Act to take steps in the matter

and it is their right to decide what steps they would avail

concerning the allegations of commissions and omissions or any

other violations on the part of the parties.

5. In view of the observations and finding of the Enquiry

Officer in the enquiry report, respondent No.2 lodged a

complaint before the police, Central Crime Station Police Station,

Hyderabad. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.232

of 2014 was registered against the petitioners and other accused,

for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and

Section 38(2)(3)(4) of the A.P. MACS Act, 1995. The Inspector of

Police, White Collar Offences Team-IV, CCS, DD., Hyderabad,

after conclusion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet on

25.01.2018 against the petitioners herein and other accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) IPC and

34 IPC and Section 38(2)(3)(4) of the A.P. MACS Act, 1995. The

learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,

Hyderabad, has taken cognizance of the said offences and

numbered the case as C.C. No. 110 of 2018.

6. Heard Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, the learned Senior

Counsel appearing for Sri N. Gangadhar, the learned counsel for

the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.7157 of 2023,

Sri M. Ramakanth, the learned counsel for the petitioner in

Criminal Petition No.7372 of 2023 and Sri S. Ganesh, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 -

State.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners-

accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 22 in Criminal Petition

No.7157 of 2023 contended that the petitioners - accused Nos. 1,

2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 22 were the members of the Adhoc

body appointed by the District Cooperative Officer, Hyderabad,

to conduct regular elections to the Society; that the Adhoc

Committee continued from 29.07.2003 to 28.03.2009; the elections

were conducted to the Society and the elected body consisting of

the petitioners have assumed charge from 29.03.2007 and

continued upto 05.02.2010 and that the allegations of

mismanagement and misrepresentation are after 2010 i.e.,

subsequent to 25.02.2010. It is the specific contention of the

learned Senior Counsel that there are no allegations against the

Adhoc Committee, which worked during the period 29.07.2003 to

28.03.2007; though accused No.22 - Y.Krishna Vardhan Reddy

was shown as Director for the period from 26.03.2011 to

26.03.2012, he was removed as Director on 26.11.2011 itself, which

is clear from the report made to the Assistant Commissioner of

Police, Detective Department, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad.

It is specifically submitted that in the report dated 20.06.2012

submitted by the Enquiry Officer, it was specifically mentioned

that the Society issued notice dated 18.10.2011 to

Y.Krishnavardhan Reddy and V.Hanumanth Reddy for being

absent to the General Body Meeting held on 04.09.2011 being the

Directors of the Board; the above two Directors submitted their

explanation to the notice dated 18.10.2011 and the same was

discussed by the Managing Committee of the Society and found

that explanation submitted by them is not satisfactory and the

Board of Directors in their meeting held on 26.11.2011 resolved

that Y. Krishnavardhan Reddy and V. Hanumanth Reddy cease

to be the Directors of the Society for a period of three years as per

Bye-Law No.23(v). It is the specific contention of the learned

Senior Counsel that Y.Krishnavardhan Reddy was the Director of

the Society for a period of eight months from 26.03.2021 to

26.11.2021; that even during that period, he attended only two

meetings dated 30.03.2011 and 15.04.2011; that the meeting held

on 30.03.2011 was for electing the office bearers of the Society and

the office bearers were elected and no other business was

conducted in the said meeting and therefore, the question of

misappropriation by the petitioners - accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8,

9, 11, 12, 13 and 22 does not arise.

8. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that

the statements of L.Ws.1 and 2 recorded by the police are of

stereo type and they are nothing but replica of the complaint. It is

further contended that the petitioners have even made a

representation dated 22.10.2018 to the Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad, Administrative Officer, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad and Sri Vedula Srinivas, Chair Person of the

Committee, stating that the Adhoc Committee functioned only

from 29.07.2003 till 24.03.2007; that the Adhoc Committee was

subsequently elected as office-bearers of the Society during the

elections held on 24.03.2007 and the office-bearers functioned

upto 24.03.2009, on which date, the elected body was orally

directed by Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumar to handover all the

records to Mrs. K. Satya Kumar, the then Registrar

(Management), since retired; that a copy of the acknowledgment

duly signed by Mrs. K. Satya Kumar along with the list of

records, which were handed over to her, were also submitted to

the Chief Justice, and they requested the Hon'ble Chief Justice to

consider that the accounts from 2003 to 2009 have been placed

before the General Body every year; that during their tenure, the

membership fees etc., were directly credited to the account of

their Society; that the Adhoc body and the elected body during

their tenure has spent only Rs.4,13,241.75 ps and they have

handed over the Fixed Deposit of Rs.3.10 Crores to the Successor

Committee and the entire misappropriation took place after

22.10.2009 for which the petitioners are not responsible. The

learned Senior Counsel further contended that the petitioners

have also made a representation to Sri Vedula Srinivas, Chair

Person, Audit Team, bringing to his notice all the records which

were handed over, and stating that the accounts during the years

2003-2009 have been placed before the General Body every year

and also stating that Rs.4,13,214.75 was only spent towards

expenditure and that the Fixed Deposit of Rs.3.10 Crores was

handed over to the Successor Committee and the entire

misappropriation took place after 22.10.2009. The learned Senior

Counsel further contended that the entire allegations do not

constitute any offence and there must be specific accusation as to

the nature of the act committed by each of the petitioner and that

there are absolutely no particulars about the act committed by

them and therefore, prayed to quash all further proceedings

against petitioners - accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 22

in C.C.No.110 of 2018 on the file of the XII Additional Chief

Metorpolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal

Petition No.7372 of 2023 contended that prior to lodging of the

report by respondent No.2, the petitioner-accused No.17 has

addressed a letter to the District Cooperative Officer, Hyderabad,

requesting to accept his resignation to the post of Director of the

Society on 11.10.2011 and the said letter was received on

14.10.2011 i.e., much prior to the registration of the crime.

Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner being a

responsible employee of the Society, made complaints against the

misdeeds and omissions on the part of the Managing Committee

prior to the filing of the report by respondent No.2. Despite the

same, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.17. He further

contended that in the charge sheet itself it was mentioned that the

petitioner and others were elected on 29.03.2010 and they

arranged audit of account of the Society from the year 2003 to

31.03.2010 as per the Bank statements, since the previous bodies

have not handed over the expenditure vouchers and account

books, no specific overt acts are mentioned in the charge sheet. It

is further contended that accused No.23 has filed Criminal

Petition No.400 of 2019 and this Court vide order

dated 25.02.2019 has allowed the said Criminal Petition and

quashed the proceedings against accused No.23 and observed

that petitioner-accused No.23 and another submitted resignations

and accused Nos.24 and 25 were appointed in their place. In

view of the same, continuation of the proceedings against the

petitioner in Criminal Petition No.7372 of 2023 is an abuse of

process of law, and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings

against him in C.C.No.110 of 2018.

10. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that

the action initiated against the petitioners is strictly in accordance

with the Rules in vogue, the Inquiry Report was submitted within

the period of time and the General Body is conducted to take

action based on the above report and therefore, prayed to dismiss

the criminal petition.

11. Heard the rival submissions of both the parties and

perused the entire record.

12. A perusal of the charge sheet discloses that no specific

allegations are made against accused Nos.1,2,3,5,7,8,9,11,12,13

and 22. However, some allegations are made against accused

No.17. Even as per the charge sheet, accused No.17 has acted as

Director from 29.03.2010 to 25.03.2012. But, it is the specific

contention of the learned counsel for accused No.17 that accused

No.17 has given his resignation five days prior to the registration

of the crime.

13. The record further discloses that misappropriation did not

took place during the tenure of the petitioners. Further, the

petitioners have handed over the records to their successors i.e.,

after 2009. Even as per the dates and the tenures mentioned in the

charge sheet, the petitioners herein, except accused Nos.17 and

22, who were removed by the Board, have not worked beyond

2011.

14. The record further discloses that works were entrusted to

accused No.28- P. Veeraiah, works contractor, for development of

land and other development works on 07.01.2011, but the said

Veeraiah has been registered as Civil Contractor on 03.08.2011 i.e,

subsequent to the giving of works to him.

15. Admittedly, accused Nos. 1,2,3,5,7,8,9,11,12,13 and 22

handed over the records to their successors in the years 2009

itself. Further, as stated supra, accused Nos.17 and 22 have been

removed by the Board in the year 2011.

16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the allegations made against the petitioners are not

at all attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences and

therefore, the petitioners cannot be held liable for the said

offences. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners -

accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 22 and 17 in

C.C.No.110 of 2018 pending on the file of XII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are liable to be

quashed.

17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the

proceedings against the petitioners - accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9,

11, 12, 13 and 22 and 17 in C.C.No.110 of 2018 pending on the file

of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,

Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J

Date: 16.10.2023 va