( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ravi Kiran Rao, Counsel representing the petitioners and the learned public Prosecutor representing the respondent. ( 2 ) SRI Ravi Kiran Rao, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners would maintain that the charge sheet was filed alleging an offence under Section 409 IPC. The learned counsel also would submit that the President and Secretary of a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society are not public servants within the meaning of Section 21 IPC. In view of the same, the ingredients of Section 409 ipc are not attracted. The Counsel would maintain that in the light of the said legal position, taking cognizance of an offence under Section 409 IPC by the Court below against the petitioners who may not fall within the meaning of public servants cannot be sustained. In the alternative, the learned counsel would maintain that even if it is to be taken as one falling under Section 406 IPC, the period of limitation would come in, inasmuchas after a long lapse of time of at least 9 years or 7 years respectively, cognizance was taken in relation to the offence as against petitioners 1 and 2. The learned Counsel also would maintain that while taking cognizance no reasons at least had been recorded exercising the powers under Section 473 Cr. P. C. and hence viewed from any angle, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decisions D. Venkat Rao and another v. State and Asst. Commercial Tax officer, Hyderabad v Sri Krishna Picture palace. ( 3 ) PER contra, the learned Public prosecutorwould maintain that these aspects may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage and in the light of the allegations made, the further proceedings may have to be proceeded giving liberty to the petitioners to agitate these questions at the appropriate time. The learned Public Prosecutor has taken this Court through the contents of the charge-sheet and also the specific dates and the series of events and would maintain that in any view of the matters, the prosecution would fall within limitation and at any rate this question may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage. ( 4 ) ON the first question raised, in commissioner of Trade Tax UP. ( 4 ) ON the first question raised, in commissioner of Trade Tax UP. v. Kanhai ram Rhekedar it was held that the Officer of state Government deputed as Managing director, of a Co-operative Society is not a public servant in terms of Section 21 IPC as his salary is not paid by the State Government and no doubt it was further held that no sanction under Section 197 Cr. P. C. would be required. Section 409 IPC dealing with Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent reads as hereunder:"whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. "the submission made by the learned Counsel in the alternative is to the effect that inasmuch as the petitioners would not fall within the meaning of Section 21 of the IPC, the said provision is not attracted and even if it is taken that in the alternative Section 406 IPC would be attracted, even in such a case, the prosecution is barred by limitation. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions (1) and (2) referred supra. ( 5 ) SEVERAL details had been narrated in seriatim at para -4 of the grounds raised in the Criminal Petition and it may be appropriate to have a look at the allegations made in the charge sheet also to appreciate the contentions of the respective Counsel and the allegations in the charge sheet are as hereunder:"the brief facts of the case are that the accused A-1 Gangadhar Rao is advocate and Ex-President of P. A. C. S. Ltd, Kandhakurthi village, the A-2 shivilinga Rao is Ex-President of p. A. C. S. Ltd, Kandurki village, and A-3 c. H. shanker, Markfed and Supervisor, on basing some allegation against the accused A-1 to A-3 and as per instructions of Dy. Registrar of Co-op. Society Bodhan the LW-2 Sri Ahmed mohinuddin Khan, Coop. Sub-Registrar office of Bodhan made enquires in the misappropriation of P. A. C. S. funds and submitted his report. Registrar of Co-op. Society Bodhan the LW-2 Sri Ahmed mohinuddin Khan, Coop. Sub-Registrar office of Bodhan made enquires in the misappropriation of P. A. C. S. funds and submitted his report. During his enquiry he found the accused A-1 2006 misappropriated an amount of rs. 1,16,317-20 paise, accused A-2 misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,088- 10 paise, accused A-3 misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2,100-00. In this regard the T. O. D. Bodhan was issued proceedings No. RCS Re. No. 1412/84- 2 dated 23-8-84 to conduct the enquiry and report with his findings vide reference enquiry report of Inspection officer dated 30-11-1985. The LW-1 the Coop. Sub-Divisional Officer on the enquiry report of LW-2 and with permission of the District Collector a criminal complaint have been filed before the SHO Yedlapally for legal action. During the enquiry the following records have been collected and sent the same to SHO Yedpally along with complaint the relevant records as follows. (1) Copy of proceedings of DRCS. Bodhan in RC. No. 412/84-B, dt. 23-8-1989 (2) Copy of theenquiry report conducted by the Taluka Coop. Officer, Bodhan u/s. 51 of the ARCS Act VII of 1964 containing (19) pages dt. 30-11-85. (3) Copy of deposition of Sri Gangadhar rao, Ex.-President. PACS Kakdurki dt. 30-11-85 recorded as (9) page (2) pages. (4) Copy of deposition of Sri Gangadhar rao, Ex-President PACS Ltd, kaldurki on the items of Fertilizers dt. 30-11-85 (a) page. (5) Proceedings of the District Collector, nizambad RC. No. 5363/84-B, dt. 23-4-86 permitting to launch prosecution. (6) Copy of deposition of Sri Gangadhar rao, Ex-President PACS Ltd, kaldurki on the item of Fertilizers dt. 30-11-85 (i) page. (7) Copy of deposition of Sri Shiva Linga rao Ex.-President PACS Ltd, kaldurki dt. (8) Copy of deposition of Sri Ch. Shankar supervisor, Markfed, Nizamabad dt. (9) Copy of the charge list of PACS kaldurki signed by the Ex-Presidents and paid Secretaries dt. 13-12-81 and 20-11-81. (10) Suspense Account of Sri Gangadhar rao Ex-President of the society is enclosed along with copy of receipts and vouchers (Annexure-l ). (11) Suspense Account of Sri Shanker, supervisor, Markfed, Nizambad is enclosed along with copy of vouchers (Annexure-ll ). (12) Cash Book from 1-7-81 to 30-6-82 (1) (13) Cash Book from 1 -7-82 to 31 -1 -85. (14) Fertilizers sales registers from 25-8-82 to 28-11-82 (1) (15) Rice stock register, 82-83, 83-84, one register. (11) Suspense Account of Sri Shanker, supervisor, Markfed, Nizambad is enclosed along with copy of vouchers (Annexure-ll ). (12) Cash Book from 1-7-81 to 30-6-82 (1) (13) Cash Book from 1 -7-82 to 31 -1 -85. (14) Fertilizers sales registers from 25-8-82 to 28-11-82 (1) (15) Rice stock register, 82-83, 83-84, one register. (16) Kerosene oil stock register 5-2-81 to 14-4-84. (17) Fertilizers stock register 27-5-82 to 10-6-84 (1) (18) Sugar stock register 2-3-80 to22-2-83 (1) (19) Sugar and Palm Oil register (26-12-82 to 30-6-88) (1) (20) Wheat stock register (1) 28-2-83 to 25-5-83 (21) Receipt book of the society written from 9-2-82 to 31 -3-82 from receipt no. 901 to 1000 (1) (22) Receipt Bill 1001 to 1100 (1) (24) non controlled cloth 14 book tickers from 12-1-1749. On receipt of above complaint and records the LW-17 has registered a case in state OF A. P. v. PUTHUR RAMI REDDY (P. SWAROOP REDDY, J.) (A. P.) cr. No. 54/89 U/s. 409 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation the lw-17 examined the LWs. 2 to 16 and recorded their detail statements and verified the relevant records mentioned in FIR SI. No. 1 to 22 and finalised the investigation. Meanwhile the accused A-1 has surrendered in the JFCM Court, Bodhan i. e. , 26-4-89 and a-2 was surrendered in the Hon ble Court on 4-5-89 and both were released on bail on respective dates mentioned above. The accused A-3 is absconding since the commission of the offence. Hence request the Hon ble Court the NBW may be issued against A-3 to effect his arrest and produce before the Hon ble Court. From the evidence collected so far and on available documentary evidence it is established that the accused A-1 to A-3 committed an offence punishable under section 409 IPC. fortheir misappropriation of p. A. C. S. funds of Kaldurki village. Hence the charge. " ( 6 ) IN the light of the allegations aforesaid and also in the light of the events given in seriatim, inasmuch as alternative contentions are being advanced relating to applicability of Section 409 IPC and the attraction of the ingredients specified therein to the facts of the case and alternative submissions of the bar of limitation to Section 406 IPC, this Court is of the considered opinion thatthese matters may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage. But however in the light of the peculiar facts of the case, the petitioners are given liberty to raise all these contentions, inclusive of the alternative contentions by making appropriate application for discharge. Except making this observation nothing else can be done at this stage in the light of the allegations made in the charge sheet referred to supra. With the above observations the criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.