M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

The sole accused in C.C.No.5 of 2016 on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Karimnagar, filed this criminal petition to quash the proceedings against him, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short P.C. Act), 1988 in Crime No.14/RCA-ACB-NZB/2010.

2. It is the case that, the petitioner initially worked as a clerk at Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Society, Kotagiri Village, Nizamabad District and subsequently worked as Paid Secretary at Minarpally Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District from 04.01.1982 to 20.12.2010. On receiving credible information that this petitioner acquired assets by corrupt practices, the Joint Director (Telangana) A.C.B., Hyderabad registered crime and search warrants were obtained from the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases Hyderabad. Searches were conducted at various residential premises of the petitioner at H.No.1-2-760, Rakasipet, Bodhan, Nizamabad District, H.No.14-67, Kotagiri Village & Mandal, Bodhan, Nizamabad District and bank locker bearing No.102 in Nizamabad District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Bodhan Branch on 20.12.2010. During the searches, incriminating material relating to the disproportionate assets was found to the tune of Rs. 79,45,007/- in his name and in the name of his family members. Further, during the check period, the total income derived by the petitioner during check period was ascertained at Rs. 37,61,389/-, whereas, the total expenditure of the petitioner during the check period as determined at Rs. 37,61,389/-. Further, the petitioner possessed savings of Rs. 8,40,464/- and assets worth Rs. 79,45,0007/-, thereby, he could not satisfactorily account for Rs. 87,85,471/-, which is disproportionate to his known source of income. Thus, the petitioner allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 3(2) r/w Section 3(1)(e) of P.C. Act.

3. The material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation revealed the assets, income and expenditure of the petitioner which are placed at Annexures-I, II & III respectively and based on the statements recorded, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner along with his family members possessed disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 87,85,471/-.

4. The present petition is filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that, the allegations made in the charge-sheet do not constitute an offence, even if the allegations made in the charge- sheet are accepted on its face value and that there was no allegation that the property was acquired by corrupt practices and that the petitioner is only an employee in Primary Agriculture Co- Operative Society, Minarpally Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad. The petitioner contended that no proceedings were initiated against him, inasmuch as, neither there was any allegation with regard to corrupt practices nor making unlawful gain while working as an employee in Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Society, Minarpally Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against this petitioner or no surcharge proceedings were initiated under Section 60(1) of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act till date, therefore, he cannot be prosecuted for the above offences. Further, it is contended that, the petitioner is not an independent authority and that, question of adopting corrupt practices, and acquiring property does not arise. In addition to that, the Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Society is not a society registered under the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, and it is a well settled law in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in A. Subramanyam Naidu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 5 ALD 682 that, the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies have no independent power to appoint and retrench Paid Secretaries without obtaining previous sanction of the Registrar of Coopera