SURAJ MAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision and has been directed against the order dated 22.11.1997 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Karnal, who vide impugned order decided to frame charges under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner, who was working as a Manager of the Assandh Primary Coop. Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., Assandh. As per the allegations of the prosecution on 6.8.1996 the petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed while having accepted a bribe of Rs. 3,000/- from one Sukha Singh for releasing the first instalment of Rs. 53,000/-. After the investigation of the case, the petitioner was charge- sheeted for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and at the stage of charge the petitioner took a plea that since he was not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, he could not be charge-sheeted under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This plea of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Special Judge, Karnal vide impugned order and aggrieved by the said order the present revision.

(2.) THE learned Special Judge gave the following reasons in rejecting the plea of the petitioner :-

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had placed reliance on Full Bench judgment titled State of Punjab v. Kesari Chand and anr., 1987(1) Recent C.R. 297, yet the Special Judge did not rightly appreciate the ratio of this judgment. The counsel submitted that it has been held by the Full Bench of this Court, after taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daman Singh's case reported as AIR 1985 Supreme Court 973 that the employees of the Co-operative Society are not "public servants" because they are the employees of a co-operative society which is a body corporate and has a different meaning from the word "corporation". On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has relied upon the reasons advanced by the learned Special Judge and also the case law which has been referred in the impugned order itself.