LAWS(P&H)-1986-4-28

B.L. DALMIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On April 16, 1986
B.L. Dalmia Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four criminal revision petitions have been filed against the order of the Special Judge, Ambala, dated 25th August, 1984. Out of these four revision petitions, Criminal Revision No. 1770, 1769 and 1663 of 1984 have been filed by Balwant Singh petitioner while Criminal Revision No. 1631 of 1984 has been filed by two petitioners, namely, B.L. Dalmia and R.C. Jha. The only and common point of law involved in these revision petitions is as to whether the employees of the nationalised banks are public servants within the meaning of section 21, clause 12(b), of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE facts which gave rise to these petitions are that Balwant Singh petitioner is the manager of the State Bank of Patiala at Kalka while B.L. Dalmia and R.C. Jha are factory-owners at Bhiwani in Haryana State. The last mentioned two petitioner had financial dealings with the aforesaid branch of the bank. A case against those three petitioners and some others was registered at the instance of the C.B.I. at Police Station, Ambala Cantt., under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120-B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The challan was put up in the Court of Shri V.M. Jain, Special Judge Ambala. The petitioners and their co-accused raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the employees of the nationalised banks were not public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. So, the Special Judge was not competent to try them under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the learned Special Judge overruled the objection and came to a finding that the employees of the nationalised banks were public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and could be tried under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Special Judge, these petitioners have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) M .M. Punchhi, J. - These four petitioners (Cr. Revision Nos. 1631, 1663, 1769 and 1770 of 1984) can conveniently be disposed of by a single order. These have jointly been referred to the Division Bench by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court to settle a common question of law whether the employees of the nationalised banks are public servants within the meaning of section 21, clause twelfth(b) of the Indian Penal Code. Balwant Singh (now dead) is the revision-petitioner in Criminal Revision Nos. 1663, 1769 and 1770 of 1984. On his death these revision petitions abate as none of his near relatives has approached his court to be substituted as the petitioner. However, in Criminal Revision No. 1663 of 1984 Bhagat Singh co-accused in that particular case, has sought permission to be impleaded as a party pursuing the revision petition. The ground taken is that since the revision petition was likely to abate, he be allowed to prosecute the petition. The ground is altogether untenable. He cannot be allowed to be made petitioner in substitution of Balwant Singh deceased. In the fourth petition i.e. Criminal Revision No. 1631 of 1984 the petitioners are two businessmen and not bank employees. The question in their case indirectly arises for the allegation of the prosecution is that Balwant Singh as manager of the State Bank of Patiala at Kalka and some other co-accused employees of the bank along with other non-employees co-accused, while conducting financial dealings, had committed offence triable under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 123-B read with section 420, Indian Penal Code. Despite the death of Balwant Singh, the question still sought to be raised is whether Balwant Singh, and other bank employees (co-accused) were public servants within the meaning of section 21, clause twelfth (b) of the Indian Penal Code as such an objection was taken before the trial Judge and on his answering the question against the accused gave is to twelve petitions. So the question in any case has to be decided.