K RAJENDIRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the first accused in Crime No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Vellore, the respondent herein, to quash the F.I.R. in that case.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said criminal case has been registered for the offences under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the IPC by treating the petitioner who was employed as Secretary of Girisamudhram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District, as a public servant coming within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He further submitted that the society in which the petitioner was employed as Secretary is not the one receiving or received financial aid and hence the petitioner is not a public servant under the law and hence could not be proceeded at all and hence the F.I.R. in Crime No.1 of 2008 is liable to be quashed. In support of the said contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2007) 4 MLJ 321 (SC) (Greater Bombay Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex. Pvt. Ltd.).

(3.) IN the above said decision relied upon by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), the judgment of the Bombay High Court quashing the F.I.R. in a similar situation placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2000) 2 SCC 699 = 2000 SCC (Cri) 533 (State of Maharashtra v. Laljit Rajshi Shah) in which decision it was held that the accused in that case was not a public servant as defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The said decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court has pointed out that the said decision was rendered in a case covered under Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and not under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. It has also been pointed out that considering the definition of the expression 'public servant' in the definition in Section 21 of the IPC which was adopted in the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 the Apex Court in that decision took a view that the members of the Managing Committee and Chairman of the Cooperative Societies under the Maharashtra Cooperatives Societies Act are not public servants. While dealing with the above said issue and the decision reported in (2000) 2 SCC 699 (referred to supra) and after referring to the definition of the expression 'public servant' as contained in Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 the Apex Court has held as under:-