Order.- The petitioner has been convicted by the Additional Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in C.C. No. 2520 of 1965 for the offence punishable under section 408, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The accused-petitioner worked as a salesman of Maddilapalem branch of the Central Co-operative Stores, Visakhapatnam from 2nd August, 1964 upto 10th July, 1965. He had to receive stocks, sell them for cash, maintain accounts and remit the sale amounts twice in a week to the Central Co-operative Stores, Visakhapatnam and he should not issue stocks or sell them to any one on credit basis. On 1st July, 1965, the Assistant Accountant-cum-Cashier of the Central Stores, Visakapatnam, on verification, found deficit stocks in the branch and that the accused had prepared false statements of the stocks for verification. It was found that there was a deficit in the stocks to the value of Rs. 6,311-62. When questioned about the deficit, the accused admitted that be misappropriated part of the sale amounts and sold certain stocks on credit to some persons, from whom money had still to be realised. The Executive Officer of the Central Stores, gave a complaint to the Police who filed the charge-sheet. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and filed Exhibits P-1 to to P-54 in support of its case. The plea of the accused is one of not guilty. The Trial Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record, held that there was deficit stocks to the value of Rs. 6,311-62 on 10th July, 1965, when the stocks were checked and verified by the Assistant Accountant-cum-Cashier of the Central Stores, Visakhapatnam and the accused had misappropriated the same. It was further held that the plea of the accused that the deficit was caused on account of the shortage in weighment of the commodities in the Central Stores, was not acceptable. The Trial Court rejected the theory of the defence that part of the stocks were sola on credit as he was not expected to sell the stocks on credit as per the rules. Consequently, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 408, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Consequently, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 408, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam agreed with the findings of the Trial Court and confirmed the conviction and the sentence. Hence the Revision Petition. Sri Satyanarayana, the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner strenuously urged: (1) that the Courts below erred in holding that his client had misappropriated the amount of Rs. 6,311-62 worth of stocks entrusted to him as the s;tlesman; (2) that the prosecution was illegal for the omission to obtain the requisite sanction from the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies to prosecute the accused; and (3) that in any event the sentence of three months Rigorous Imprisonment was excessive. On a consideration of the entire evidence and the material on record, I hold that the Courts below have rightly found that the accussed had misappropriated stocks worth Rs. 6,311-62 entrusted to him as the salesman of the Maddulapalem Central Co-operative Stores, Visakhapatnam and committed the offence punishable under section 408, Indian Penal Code. I find that there are no valid and justifiable grounds for me to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below with regard to the plea of the defence that there was deficit in stocks, on account of the weighment in the Central stores or that the stocks were sold by him on credit to third parties and he could not realise the amounts. Hence, there is no merit in the first contention. The second contention of the learned Counsel viz., that the sanction of the Registrar, Co-operative societies as contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is necessary is also devoid of any merit. Sub-section (3) of section 83 of the Act reads as follows: "83 (.3). No prosecution shall be instituted under this Act without the previous sanction of the Registrar." The prosecution in the instant case is not instituted under the Act. The prosecution launched in the instant case, is clearly under the Indian Penal Code, and for any prosecution to be launched under the Indian Penal Code, no sanction of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies as contemplated under sub-section (3) of section 83 of the Act is required. The prosecution launched in the instant case, is clearly under the Indian Penal Code, and for any prosecution to be launched under the Indian Penal Code, no sanction of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies as contemplated under sub-section (3) of section 83 of the Act is required. Hence, the provisions of section 83 (3) of the Act are not applicable to the instant case. Sri Satyanarayana next urged that the provisions of sections 59 and 60 of the Act provide for an enquiry to be conducted by the Registrar or any person authorised by him to enquire into of any entrustment of the property belonging to the society to any one of the Officers present or past or servant of the Society who had misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property or had been guilty of breach of trust in relation to the Society or had caused any deficiency in the assets of the Society by breach of trust and hence the failure to conduct such enquiry as contemplated by the provisions of sections 59 and 60 of the Act, in the instant case, is fatal to the prosecution. To appreciate this contention, it is useful to extract the provisions of sections 59 and 60 of the Act. "59. Suspension of officer or servant of society: (1) Where in the course of an audit under section 50 or an inquiry under section 51 or an inspection under section 52 or section 53, it is brought to the notice of the Registrar that a paid Officer or servant of a society has committed or has been otherwise responsible for misappropriation, breach of trust or other offence in relation to the society, the Registrar may, if in his opinion there is prima facie evidence against such paid officer or servant and the suspension of such paid officer or servant is necessary in the interests of the society, direct the committee pending the investigation and disposal of the matter, to place or cause to be placed such paid officer or servant under suspension from such date and for such period as may be specified by him, but not retrospectively. (2) On receipt of such direction, the Committee shall notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the bye-laws place or cause to be placed the paid officer or servant under suspension forthwith. (2) On receipt of such direction, the Committee shall notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the bye-laws place or cause to be placed the paid officer or servant under suspension forthwith. (3) The Registrar may direct the committee to extend from time to time, the period of suspension and the paid officer or servant suspended shall not be reinstated except with the previous approval of the Registrar. 60. Surcharge: (1) Where in the course of an audit under section 50 or any inquiry under section 51 or an inspection under section 52, or section 53, or the winding up of a society, it appears that any person who was entrusted with the organisation, affairs, or management of the society or any past or present officer or servant of the society has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property or has been guilty of breach of trust in relation to the society or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or wilful negligence or has made any payment contrary to the provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws, the Registrar himself, or any person specially authorised by him in this behalf, of his own motion or on the application of the committee, liquidator or any creditor or contributory, may inquire into the conduct of such person or Officer or servant and make an order requiring him to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof with interest at such rate as the Registrar or the person authorised as aforesaid thinks just or to contribute such sum to the assets of the society by way of compensation in respect of the misappropriation, misapplication of funds, fraudulent retainer, breach of trust or wilful negligence as the Registrar or the person authorised as aforesaid thinks just. Provided that no order shall be passed against any person referred to in this sub-section unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making his representation. (2) Any sum ordered under this section to be repaid to a society or recovered as a contribution to its assets may be recovered on requisition being made in this behalf by the Registrar to the Collector in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. (2) Any sum ordered under this section to be repaid to a society or recovered as a contribution to its assets may be recovered on requisition being made in this behalf by the Registrar to the Collector in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. (3) This section shall apply notwithstanding that such person or Officer or servant may-have incurred criminal liability by his act." Section 59 of the Act provides that the Registrar, may if in his opinion, there is any prima facie evidence against any paid officer or servant, in any enquiry conducted under section 51 or in an inspection conducted under section 52 or 53 or if it was brought to his notice, direct the committee pending the investigation and disposal of the matter, to place the paid officer or servant, under suspension from such date. Sub-section (2) authorises the committee to place the paid Officer or servant under suspension, after the receipt of such direction contemplated under sub-section (1) of section 59. Sub-section (3) empowers the Registrar to direct the committee to extend the period of suspension relating to the paid Officer or servant. Section 60 empowers the Registrar to enquire into the conduct of such person or Officer or servant and make an order requiring him to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof as he thinks just or to contribute such sum to the assets of the society by way of compensation in respect of the misappropriation, misapplication of funds, fraudulent retainer, breach of trust as the Registrar or the person authorised thinks just. Sub-section (3) of section 60 clearly postulates the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code, for any misappropriation or breach of trust, apart from or in addition to the action that could be taken by the Registrar or the authorised person under section 60 of the Act. Hence, I hole that the provisions of sections 59 and 60 of the Act are not at all applicable in the instant case. The provisions of sections 59 and 60 will not in any way disentitle the State from proceeding against the accused-petitioner herein for the offence punishable under section 408, Indian Penal Code. Hence, I hole that the provisions of sections 59 and 60 of the Act are not at all applicable in the instant case. The provisions of sections 59 and 60 will not in any way disentitle the State from proceeding against the accused-petitioner herein for the offence punishable under section 408, Indian Penal Code. The provisions of section 59 or 60 of the Act do not provide that unless, the procedure contemplated under these sections has been followed and adopted and the enquiry conducted, there can be no prosecution under the Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in this contention also. The petitioner has been sentenced to three months imprisonment It is stated before me that he has already undergone a period of imprisonment or about seven weeks. In the circumstances, I consider that an imposition of a fine of Rs. 250 in addition to the period of imprisonment of seven weeks already undergone will meet the ends of justice. In the result, the conviction is confirmed and the sentence of thro: months’ Rigorous Imprisonment in reduced to the period already undergone and I impose a fine of Rs. 250 payable within two months from the date of the receipt of the order in the trial Court, in default the petitioner will have to suffer one month Rigorous Imprisonment. A.B.K. ----- Revision dismissed.