Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 731 (AP)

T. Nathanial v. D. Satyanarayana Murthy

2009-10-22

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

body2009
ORDER :- This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the criminal proceedings in CC No.223 of 2002 of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore relating to private complaint filed by the first respondent herein against the petitioner Nos.1 to 7 as A-1 to A-7 alleging an offence under Section 84A of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. It is an unfortunate case wherein Grade-II Telugu Pandit (Unaided) is stated to have been denied his salaries during the period when he worked in the Educational Institution of A-1 to A-7, who are in management of the same. Previously, the complainant filed WP No.8370 of 2001 in this Court and obtained orders against the authorities concerned for taking action against the management, who did not pay salaries. In pursuance of the directions of this Court in that writ petition, the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur passed order dated 25.9.1997 directing the accused to pay salaries of the complainant. The Regional Joint Director, Guntur also directed the District Educational Officer, Ongole to see that the above order is implemented within a period of two months. It is alleged that inspite of the orders of this Court, orders of the Regional Joint Director, Guntur and the direction given to District Educational Officer, Ongole, till now, his claims are not settled by the Management. 3. On the other hand, the Counsel for the petitioners stated that the Management paid Rs.37,000/- to the first respondent/complainant towards his claims. The first respondent claims nearly Rs.77,000/- more than what was paid to him by the Management. Since the Management did not pay the salaries, the first respondent filed private complaint in the lower Court for prosecuting A-1 to A-7 for the offence under Section 84A of the Act and it was taken cognizance by the Magistrate. 4. Now Counsel for the petitioners contends that the proper person to launch prosecution for the offence under Section 84A of the Act is the competent authority mentioned in Rule 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Inspection and Visits) Rules, 1988 (in short 'the Rules'). 5. The penal provision, namely Section 84A of the Act, reads as follows: "84A. 4. Now Counsel for the petitioners contends that the proper person to launch prosecution for the offence under Section 84A of the Act is the competent authority mentioned in Rule 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Inspection and Visits) Rules, 1988 (in short 'the Rules'). 5. The penal provision, namely Section 84A of the Act, reads as follows: "84A. Penalties for contravention of this Chapter:-If the management or manager contravenes, or attempts to contravene, any of the provisions of this Chapter or any rule or order made there under, it or he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and with fine which may extend to 'five thousand rupees and in the case of continuing contravention, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, in addition to withdrawal of recognition of the institution." 6. It is contended by the Counsel for the first respondent that Section 84A does not prescribe any particular person as the person competent to initiate proceedings against the erring management and that any person aggrieved inaction of the management is competent to launch prosecution for the offence under Section 84A of the Act. 7. At this juncture, a reference to Rule 15 of the Rules may be made and it reads as follows: "Rule 15 Authority to initiate action for violating the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under:-The Inspecting Officer, Reviewing Authorities and the Appellate Authorities prescribed for various categories of institution as mentioned in the table under Rule 3 are the competent authorities to initiate action and prosecute the management and! or Secretary/ Correspondent of the offender institutions, as the case may be, for violation of various provisions of the Act and rules made there under. On a complaint made by the concerned authority, the Criminal Court having jurisdiction will try the management and/or Secretary/Correspondent of the offender institutions as the case may be. 8. It is contended by the Counsel for the first respondent that Rule -15 of the Rules cannot defeat the penal provision contained in Section 84A of the Act and that Rule 15 is an unconnected rule to Section 84A of the Act. 8. It is contended by the Counsel for the first respondent that Rule -15 of the Rules cannot defeat the penal provision contained in Section 84A of the Act and that Rule 15 is an unconnected rule to Section 84A of the Act. The Counsel for the first respondent took me through other provisions of the said Rules and contended that those Rules relate to inspections and visits to Private Management Educational Institutions and Rule 15 can only operate with regard to subjects mentioned in the other Rules therein. 9. In my opinion, contention of the Counsel for the first respondent is not tenable. Rule 15 clearly enunciates that the authorities, who can initiate action for violating provisions of not only the Act but also the Rules made there under, are the prescribed authorities therein. Authorities mentioned therein are the Inspecting Officer, Reviewing Authorities and the Appellate Authorities who are competent not only to initiate action but also for launching prosecution against the management including Secretary or Correspondent of the offending institution for violation of penal provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. In case Rule-15 prescribed only with regard to academic matters mentioned in the Rules and not financial matters, which are outside the rules, then, wording of Rule-15 should have been confined to violation of the Rules only. Instead, Rule-15 speaks about not only violation of the Rules but also violation of various provisions of the Act. It follows that the prosecution under Section 84A of the Act has to be initiated by the competent authorities mentioned in Rule 15 of the Rules only and not by the aggrieved party himself. 10. In that view of the matter, I find that private complaint lodged by the first respondent herein in the lower Court is without authority of law and that the first respondent is incompetent and has no locus standi to file the private complaint, though he is the victim. The first respondent, being the victim, has to approach the competent authorities mentioned in Rule 15 of the Rules for initiating prosecution against the management for the offence under Section 84A of the Act and he cannot shoulder the task of filing the private complaint by himself. 11. The first respondent, being the victim, has to approach the competent authorities mentioned in Rule 15 of the Rules for initiating prosecution against the management for the offence under Section 84A of the Act and he cannot shoulder the task of filing the private complaint by himself. 11. Therefore, I find that the private complaint filed by the first respondent in the lower Court is not in accordance with law and that it is irregular and incompetent. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in CC No.223 of 2000 of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.