H. NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal, revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.07.2010 in Spl. CC. No. 39/2005 passed by the Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore dismissing the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner was the Director of Mother Diary, Yelahanka, Bangalore. The Mother Diary is a unit of Karnataka Co -operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd, a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Society Act. According to the respondents petitioner is a public servant and had amassed wealth of Rs. 14,14,087.76 disproportionate to his known source of income. After investigation the respondents filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act in C.C. No. 39/2005 on the file of Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore city. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Special Court, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge mainly on the ground that he is not a public servant as defined under the provisions of the P.C. Act, the sanction to prosecute the petitioner as not valid and there is no material on record to frame a charge. Respondents filed objections inter alia contending that the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, the cooperative society is an authority, petitioner is an employee of cooperative society and as such he is a public servant. The investigating material prima -facie establishes the charge against the petitioner. On the basis of the rival contentions the special court framed the following points for its consideration:

(2.) AFTER hearing arguments and on appreciation of material on record, the special court passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner is a public servant, sanction is valid, there are material on record to frame charge and consequently dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) PER contra, Smt. T.M. Gayathri, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order passed by the Special Court. It is contended that the employer of the petitioner is an authority which falls under Section 2 of the PC Act. The Special court by following the law laid down by the Apex Court rightly passed the impugned order.