S MUKUNDAN THAMBI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER/accused No.2 in C.C.No.20 of 1994 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, preferred the revision aggrieved against the order passed in Crl.M.P. SR.No.6120 of 1996 dated 6.9.1996.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.20 of 1994 on the basis of a charge sheet filed by the respondent for the alleged offences under Sec.120-B read with Sec.167, 409, 420, 465, 467, 471, 218, 161 of I.P.C., and Sec.5(2) read with 5(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. THE petitioner was employed as an Additional Accountant in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as THE Board). THEre are also other employees of the Board, who are facing trial along with the petitioner. THE respondent has proceeded against the petitioner on the basis that he is a public servant and therefore committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) POINT:The petitioner is one of the accused facing trial in C.C.No.20 of 1994 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Madras for alleged offences under Sec.120-B read with 167, 409, 420, 465, 467, 471, 218, 161 of I.P.C. and Sec.5(2) read with 5(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner was employed as Additional Accountant in the Board and he is not a public servant and, as such, he cannot be prosecuted for an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act and sanction order given by the Managing Director of the Board is also not proper and correct. Learned senior counsel further stated that the status of the Board was decided in Writ Appeals Nos.917 and 918 of 1990 on the file of this Court and it was held that the Board was in the Industrial Establishment. The relationship between the Board and the employee is one of the Master and Servant and apart from that, when the petitioner was placed under suspension, he had moved the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute and I.D.No.214 of 1993 was also allowed in his favour. Hence, it is contended that once the petitioner does not fal1 within the definition of a public servant, Prevention of Corruption Act will not apply and the cannot be proceeded with under the said Act, and, as such, the order of sanction is also illegal and void and hence, the petitioner has to be discharged from the case.