STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DRAUPADI PARPIYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Dedhia for the petitioner and Mr. Niteen Pradhan for the respondent.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner - State, the respondent has committed an offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge-sheet came to be filed against the respondent on 14. 1. 2000. According to the State, the offence is said to have taken place on 10. 7. 1997. The learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay to whom the case was assigned, considered the charge-sheet for the purposes of deciding whether the process should be issued or not. The learned Special Judge declined to grant process and passed an order dated 25. 5. 2000 thereby directing that the charge-sheet should be returned to the appropriate Officer of A. C. B. for taking further steps in accordance with provisions of law. This came to be done by the learned Special Judge mainly by coming to the conclusion that the respondent was not a public servant in view of the judgment delivered by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 1985. This order dated 25. 5. 2000 is the subject matter of this petition which is filed by the State.

(3.) THE learned Advocate Mr. Pradhan appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that as a result of new enactment, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the definition of the "public servant" is inbuilt and is contained in Section 2(c) of the Act. Learned Advocate Mr. Pradhan argued to justify the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay and that according to him, the learned Trial Judge was right. He had therefore submitted that the impugned order should be confirmed.