STATE Vs. SRIVARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th February, 1984, of the Special Judge, Delhi, in Corruption Case No. 2/81, whereby the learned Judge has declined to proceed with the matter on the ground that the accused is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code to bring him within the mischief of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 since the Delhi High Court by a judgment of a Division Bench in Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. [1982 CRI.L.J. 2230] has ruled that a bank employee is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Special Judge, are as under : In this case, accused Srivardhan alongwith his real brother Deepak Chaudhary running a commercial firm in the name of Woodshapers was charged under Section 420/468/471/ and 477-A IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and substantive offences under these provisions for having defrauded the Union Bank to the tune of about Rupees Five Lakhs for giving bogus credits credits on the basis of false credit vouchers, cash scroll, clearing registers, transfer book and supplementary books maintained in the Bank in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy to cheat the said Bank between July, 1978 to May, 1979 by corrupt and illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant for showing false deposits and withdrawals in the bank account of Deepak Chaudhary's firm.

(3.) The prosecution in order to establish its case has led considerable evidence when the accused moved an application to say that he was covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (Supra) and therefore, could not be tried by the Special Judge as he was not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code to bring him within the mischief of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.