SRIDHAR SUBASRI Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the earlier date and the judgment was reserved. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief.

(2.) CRIMINAL Revision Application No.131 of 2007 has been filed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for taking an exception to the order dated 5th February 2007 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1988"). The CBI had filed charge sheet alleging various offences against the respondents in the said criminal revision application. It must be stated here that the investigation was commenced on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the Chief Intelligence Officer of Oriental Bank of Commerce. It must be also stated here that the complaint filed by the Chief Intelligence Officer relates to the transactions of the year 1994. The transactions relate to the Global Trust Bank Limited which was a banking corporation under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It was a banking company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It appears that on 14th August, 2004 there was amalgamation of the Global Trust Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the said bank") with the Oriental Bank of Commerce which is a public sector bank. The allegations in the complaint were against the officers of the said bank as well as other private persons. The accused nos.1 and 2 were the officers of the said bank. Charge sheet was filed by the CBI against them for the Indian Penal Code (IPC) offences as well as offences under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the said Act of 1988. When the charge sheet came up before the Special Judge, by order dated 5th February 2007, the learned Special Judge declined to take cognizance of the offences under the said Act of 1988 as against accused nos.1 and 2, on the ground that the officers of the said bank were not public servants within the meaning of said Act of 1988. Rule was issued in this criminal revision application. There are three writ petitions being Criminal Writ Petition Nos.2400/2009, 2401/2009 and 2402/2009 which are tagged along with the said criminal revision application. The said petitions have been filed by the same petitioner who was one of the Directors of the said bank. A charge sheet was filed against the petitioner before the learned Special Judge under the said Act of 1988 by the CBI.. In the charge sheet the petitioner was charged with IPC offences as well as offences under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the said Act of 1988. The charges against the petitioner admittedly relate to the transactions effected prior to the date on which the said bank amalgamated with Oriental Bank of Commerce. The prayer in these petitions is for quashing the order of learned Special Judge of taking cognizance of the offences under the said Act of 1988.

(3.) MR.Thakre, learned counsel appearing for the CBI has made detailed submissions. He has invited my attention to Section 46(A) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and submitted that the Chairman working on full time basis, Director, Manager and an Employee of a banking company shall be deemed to be public servants. He pointed out that though the said provision states that the said officers shall be deemed to be public servants for the purposes of Chapter-IX of the Indian Penal Code, he pointed out that the said chapter includes the offences under sections 161 to 165-A of the Indian Penal Code which are pari materia with the offence under the said Act of 1988.