Advocates:
B.P.MAHESHVARI, D.MUKHERJI, O.P.Sharma, P.R.MRIDUL, Suresh Sethi

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The case concerns whether a member of the Indian Administrative Service, whose services are placed at the disposal of a non-governmental organization, qualifies as a public servant under the relevant legal provisions for the purpose of criminal proceedings (!) (!) .

2. The appellant was a member of the Indian Administrative Service and was deputed to serve as General Manager of a co-operative society (Super Bazaar). His services were extended by the government, but ultimately, he reverted to his original government position after the deputation period (!) (!) .

3. The legal question hinges on whether such a deputation to a society not established by or under a central or state act, and which is not a statutory body, constitutes employment "in connection with the affairs of the Union" within the meaning of the relevant criminal law provisions (!) .

4. The legal interpretation of "public servant" in this context includes persons in the service or pay of the government, local authorities, or corporations established by or under a central, provincial, or state act, or a government company (!) (!) .

5. The co-operative society in question was incorporated under a state law but was not a corporation established directly by or under an act of the legislature; it was created by a group of individuals and is not a statutory body (!) (!) .

6. The court clarified that a corporation, in the context of the law, is an artificial legal entity created by law with perpetual succession, separate from its members, and with specific capacities such as holding property and entering contracts. This definition excludes societies formed under the Societies Registration Act from being classified as corporations established by or under a legislative act (!) (!) (!) .

7. The Super Bazaar, although owned and managed by the society, is not an instrumentality of the State. It is owned and operated by a private society with government financial support and shares but remains a private entity, not a government instrumentality (!) (!) .

8. The appellant’s employment, therefore, was not "in connection with the affairs of the Union" as defined by law, and he was not a public servant within the specified legal context for the purpose of criminal proceedings (!) (!) .

9. The legal fiction that a government employee placed at disposal of a company or society does not automatically qualify them as a public servant unless they are employed directly in connection with the Union's affairs (!) .

10. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, emphasizing that the appellant was not protected under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as his employment did not fall within the scope of "in connection with the affairs of the Union" (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.