PURUSHOTTAM DAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 6 dated 13.6.1992 under Sec. 13 E of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act,) registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar.

(2.) The sole ground of challenge is that the petitioner is not a public servant since he is employed as a Land Evaluation Officer in Primary Land Mortgage Bank, Mahendergarh. The argument of Shri Baldev Singh Sr. counsel is that the employees of Primary Land Mortgage Bank are not public servant within the meaning of Sec. 21 of the Indian Penal Code and thus the proceedings under Sec. 13 of the Act, are misconceived and misuse of process of law. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Lakhi Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 669 : [1989(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 1187 (Pb. & Hry.)], State of Punjab Vs. Kesari Chand and Anr. 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 297 : [1987(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 471 (Pb. & Hry.)]; State of Maharashtra Vs. Laljit Rajshi Shah & Ors. 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 71 : [2000(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 206 (SC)] and Suraj Mal Vs. State of Haryana, 1998 (4) (Criminal) 419.

(3.) All the judgments except the judgment in Suraj Mal's case were rendered in relation to Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and explaining the scope and ambit of Sec. 21 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the situation has undergo change with the enactment of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, where the public servant has been defined in Sec. 2(c). A public servant so defined now under the Act reads as follows :