V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE Ex-President of Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society (PACS), lingapuram Village, Amaravathi Mandal of Guntur District assails the letter of the first respondent addressed to the Chair Person of Lingapuram PACS requesting the latter to file a criminal complaint against the petitioner for misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 1,13,364. 77 (Rupees one lakh thirteen thousand three hundred sixty four and seventy seven paise only) by selling the fertilizer stocks. ( 2 ) THE advise of the first respondent to the Chair Person to file a criminal complaint before Station House Officer, Amaravathi is challenged on the ground that it is contrary to Section 83 (1) of A. P. Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, the Act) placing reliance on G. O. Ms. No. 967, dated 9. 6. 1998 as well as G. O. Ms. No. 231 dated 18. 11. 1967 whereby and whereunder the powers vested deligated to District Collector to sanction prosecution in respect of the misappropriation of funds of all types of Co-Operative Societies. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. A. Kumar, submits the first respondent is not competent to initiate criminal action against the petitioner. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the submission. Section 83 of the Act reads as under:"the Government may, for the purpose of providing speedy trial of the offences under this Act, or for, any offence committed by an officer, employee or any member of the society punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette constituted as many Special Courts as may be necessary for such area or areas as may be specified in the notification. "under sub section (2) of Section 83 of the Act an offence under the Act is a cognizable offence. Reading sub sections (1) and (3) together, it becomes clear that unless and until the prosecution is sanctioned by the competent authority, i. e. District Collector, a Judicial Magistrate of First Class cannot try the offence under the Act. While requesting the Chair Person to file a criminal complaint, first respondent has not sanctioned the prosecution. He only requested to file a complaint before the Station House Officer regarding the alleged misappropriation of funds by the former President of this PACS. While requesting the Chair Person to file a criminal complaint, first respondent has not sanctioned the prosecution. He only requested to file a complaint before the Station House Officer regarding the alleged misappropriation of funds by the former President of this PACS. Further, it is doubtful whether Section 83 of the Act is attracted when misappropriation is alleged against Ex-President for misappropriation of funds. I may however, hasten to add that this question has to be examined in appropriate case, because sub section (2) refers to "offence under the Act" and not an offence under Indian Penal Code or any other special criminal enactment. Be that as it is, it is now well settled that though under the Statute prior sanction is required for prosecution, the same is not the case when investigation is ordered allowing to such prosecution. A reference may be made to the two decisions of the Supreme Court in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. Dr. BUDHIKOTA SUBBA RAO (1) and STATE, THROUGH THE CBI V. B. L. VERMA (2) ( 4 ) FOR the above reasons, the Writ Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed in limini. No costs.