M P KINI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Crl. Petition No. 916 of 90 is accused No. 1 while petitioner Nos. 1and 2 in the other petition are accused Nos. 3 and 4 in C.C. No. 24 of 1989 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad at Secunderabad. Al was the Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank while A3 and A4 were the proprietors of Pankaj Steel Corporation and Chetan Steel Traders respectively. All the accused are under prosecution for offences under Ss. 120B, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and under S.5(2) r/w S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The main allegation against the accused is that in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, current accounts were opened in September and October, '84 respectively in the names of A3 and A4 (A1 being the Manager of the Bank, A3 being the introducer for A4's account and A4 for A3's account) and thereafter A3 and A4 together submitted ten bills (i.e. each five bills) on 1-10-1984 of a total invoice value of Rs. 8.62 lakhs puroorted to be drawn on public sector undertakings, viz. E.H.I.C. and B.H.E.L. discounted them to Rs. 6.45 lakhs and withdrew the amounts. The investigation by the C.B.I., revealed that the ten bills were false. Al is, thus, found to have intentionally and deliberately abused his position as public servant in the matter of sanction and disbursal of the ten bills presented by A3 and A4 for purposes of discouting the same and enabled A3 and A4 besides himself to obtain pecuniary advantage by cheating the Bank. The charge-sheet, therefore, was filed and the prosecution is at half-way the trial.

(2.) These two petitions are filed under S. 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the charges framed against all the three petitioners on the ground that Al is not a 'public servant' as defined in S. 2 of the. Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore they cannot be prosecuted before the Special Judge for the alleged offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act along with other offences under the Penal Code.

(3.) The simple question, thus, falls for consideration in these two petitions is, whether A1, who is an employee of the Nationalised Bank, is a public servant or not for purposes of prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.