Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13.As a matter of fact, we find that the point arising before us on the definition of 'public servant' that it does include employee of a banking co-operative society which is 'controlled or aided by the Government' is clearly covered against the respondent/accused by the judgment in the case of state of Maharashtra and another v. Prabhakarrao and another, 2002(3) RCR (crl.) 615 (SC).
9.In Criminal Revision No.1369 of 2001, decided by this Court on 21.11.2001, titled as Dharam Singh v. State of Haryana, petitioner Dharam Singh was General Manager of Sonepat Central Cooperative Bank, Sonepat and was caught red handed while accepting bribe from complainant Bharat Singh. The question arose as to whether the petitioner was a public servant within the meaning of the Act as the Special Judge, Sonepat had framed charges against petitioner Dharam Singh under the Act. While dismissing the petition, it was held as under:-
"The sole question to be considered is whether the petitioner is covered under the definition of public servant or not. It is no doubt true that in Suraj Mal's case (supra) and in Laljit Rajshi Shah's (supra) case the accused were found to be not public servants. The present case appears to be distinguishable because the employees of a cooperative society are required to perform public duties, therefore, a General Manager of the Cooperative Society would certainly be a public servant under Section 2 (c )(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The nature of duties performed by accused in Laljit Rajshi Shah's case have not been enumerated but it seems that they were members and Chairman of the Managing Committees of the Society. It was perhaps for this reason the court had no difficulty in excluding them from the definition of public servant. In Suraj Mal's case the accused was a Manager as in the present case. The court sought the aid of Section 21 IPC and as per clause twelfth, a public servant was to be a person who was in the services or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act. Cooperative Societies did not create a corporation but cooperative societies were a body corporate. An employee of a body corporate, like a cooperative society, did not fall within the definition of Section 21 IPC. It seems that the attention of the court was not drawn towards the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act itself which quite specifically refer to the concept of public duty in Section 2 (b) and clearly defines different categories of public servants in Section 2 (c ). Definition of public servant in Section 2 (c ) (iii) is similar to the definition given in Section 21 clause twelfth of IPC. But it is the definition of public servant in 2 (c ) (viii) which seems to be applicable to be present case. The petitioner was a General Manager who held office by virtue of which he was required to perform public duties, meaning thereby, that he was required to perform duties for the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest. General Mangers of Cooperative Societies certainly perform public duties in which the public and the community have a huge interest. Therefore, a General Manager is covered by the definition of public servant in Section 2 (c ) (viii). Even office bearers of a Cooperative Society seem to be covered by the definition of public servant in Section 2 (c ) (ix). According to the learned counsel the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Cooperative Bank, Karnal in 1961, promoted as Junior Accountant in 1971, promoted as Senior Accountant in 1974. In 1983 he was promoted as Assistant Manager by the Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. And thereafter he became an employee of the HARCO Bank which was registered as Society under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act. In 1996 he was promoted as Manager and posted as General Manager in Sonepat Central Cooperative Bank, Sonepat in June 2000. When the occurrence took place he was working as General Manager. He was performing public duty as a Manager of a Cooperative Bank engaged in banking activities in which the public had an interest. There can be no hesitation in holding that the petitioner was a public servant. The rulings in Laljit Rajshi Shah's case and Suraj Mal's case are clearly distinguishable."