JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:— The first set of three appeals are by special 1eave and are directed against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in three separate criminal revisions. The respondents in those appeals were prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act in the Court of the Special Judge, Jammu. It was alleged that respondent Dogra was posted as. Assistant Divisional Manager of the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co., Jammu. While working in such capacity he laid a false claim of Rs. 1,355/- against M/s. Jupiter Insurance Co., Jammu, with whom a car belonging to the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. had been insured. Dogra was using the said car in his official capacity and falsely maintained that it had met with an accident though as a fact no accident took place. The respondent Kohli, a surveyor, had been deputed to assess the damage and on account of criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons, a false report was submitted. When suspicion arose, a fresh assessor was appointed and he reported that the vehicle had not met with any accident. The respondent Sharma was then the Regional Manager of Jupiter Insurance Co. at Ambala. It is alleged that when the second assessor made his report, Sharma prevailed upon him to change it and confirm the report of Kohli. Sharma and Jugal Kishore, who were the members of the Claim Committee allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 742/- and this amount was paid to Dogra. On these allegations the four respondents were put on trial. The accused persons challenged the tenability of the prosecution on various charges by filing revision petitions before the High Court. As the High Court indicates, the challenge was mainly on two grounds; firstly, that the respondents were not public servants within the meaning of S. 21 of the Penal Code prevailing in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, and as such they could not be prosecuted under S. 5(2) of the Special Act; secondly, there was no evidence at all to connect the respondents with the offence charged and that there was no sanction for prosecution.

2. The High Court found that the respondents were not public servants and, as such, they could not be tried under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Once the Special Act was not attracted, the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case. The High Court accordingly quashed the entire proceedings pending against the respondents before the Special Judge.

3. Anand, respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 64/84, was an employee of Life Insurance Corporation and came to be charged for offences under Ss. 120B, 420,409,468 and 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code and under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. When charges were framed, objection was raised before the Special Judge on the ground that Anand was not a public servant and the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the case. When the Special Judge overruled the objection a Criminal Revision was filed before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and following the decision of the Division Bench in the three connected Criminal Revisions relating to Dogra and others, the decision which is the subject matter of the connected appeals, a single Judge of the High Court quashed the charge.

4. We have heard arguments of both the sides in regard to the question as to whether the respondents were public servants. So far as the Life Insurance Corporation is concerned, there can be no second view that the employees of the Corporation come within the definition of the term public servant as given under S. 21 of the R.P.C. So far as the other respondents are concerned, admittedly Jupiter Insurance Co. has been merged with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. after nationalisation and the latter is now a part of the Corporation, namely, General Insurance Corporation of India.