ASHOK BHATTACHARYA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point raised in the present petition is that the petitioner does not fall within the expression 'public servant' as defined under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The case pertains to the company known as Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of the Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), the entire holdings of the company known as Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. were not taken over but only those units which are specifically mentioned in Section 2(e) of the said Act were taken over. On the other hand, it is the contention ofthe learned Counsel forthe CBI that by virtue of the said Act, the entire company, i.e., Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., including all its assets and liabilities and holdings were taken over. It is an admitted position that the present petitioner was employed at the Calcutta Unit of the Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Therefore, the position is this. If it is held that the entire company was acquired by the said Act then the petitioner would be a public servant within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. However, if it is held that only those units specified in Section 2(e) of the said Act were acquired then the petitioner, not being an employee connected with the said Units, would not fall within the definition of public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Similar arguments were raised before the Special Judge and the Special Judge by virtue of the order dated 20.5.2006 accepted the arguments on behalf of the respondent and rejected the arguments on behalf of the petitioner. In the impugned order after referring to Section 12(1) of the said Act, the learned Special Judge concluded as under: "From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that every employee of Ganesh Flour Mills had become employee of the Central Government w.e.f. 28th January, 1984. In other words, the aforesaid applicants/accused persons were 'Public Servants' on the relevant date, therefore, provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 are fully attracted."

(2.) From an examination of the aforesaid extract it is clear that the Special Judge was of the view that every employee of the Ganesh Flour Mills had become an employee of the Central Government with effect from 28th January, 1984. In other words, the aforesaid applicants/accused persons were 'Public Servants' on the relevant date and, therefore, the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947 were attracted. I am afraid, that this conclusion is erroneous. The said Act itself defines the word 'Company' and the expression 'Ganesh Flour Mills' and the said word and expression are to be understood in this sense unless the context otherwise requires. Section 2(c) and Section 2(e) of the said Act read as under:

(3.) A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions indicates that the words 'company' has reference to the Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. whereas the expression 'Ganesh Flour Mills' does not mean the entire company but only the units - Delhi Vanaspati Factory, Delhi; the Hindustan Breakfast Food Manufacturing Factory, New Delhi; the Ganesh Electrical Factory, New Delhi; Kanpur Vanaspati Factory, Kanpur; and, the Solvent Extraction Plant, Bombay. It has no reference to any unit of the company at Calcutta. Section 3 of the said Act, as set out above, clearly indicates that Ganesh Flour Mills (meaning the said units) and the right, title and interest of the company (meaning the Ganesh Flour Mils Co. Ltd.) in relation to the said Ganesh Flour Mills, (i.e. the said units) would stand transferred and vest in the Central Government from the appointed day. The appointed day being 21.1.1984. Similar is the purport of the provisions of Section 5.