JUDGMENT

ANAND, J. :—Leave granted.

2. The only question that we are called upon to consider in these appeals is whether the employees of a nationalised Bank can be held to be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of Indian Penal Code and triable by Special Courts for the offences triable by those Courts. The question arises in the following circumstances.

3. The respondent was the Branch Manager of Bank of India at the relevant time. A case was registered against him and another person for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, and 477A IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. After completion of investigation by the CBI, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the Special Judge at Alipur. Calcutta on 4-12-85. Cognizance was taken but before charges were framed, the respondent moved a petition for his discharge before the Special Judge stating the he is not a public servant and therefore cannot be tried by the Special Court. The learned Special Judge by his order dated 28-6-91 rejected the application. The respondent thereupon filed a criminal revision in the Calcutta High Court seeking quashing of the prosecution launched against him on the ground (a) delay in the disposal of the case and (b) that not being a public servant, he could not be tried by a Special Court.

4. The High rejected the first ground observing that the respondent himself had handsomely contributed to whatever delay had so far been occasioned and, therefore, the proceedings could not be quashed on the ground of delay, which was not attributable solely to the prosecution. So far as the second ground is concerned, the High Court agreed with the submission made on behalf of the respondent and hold that the respondent could not be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of IPC and as such could not be tried by the Special Court. The High Court relied upon the judgment in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Delhi Development Authority, reported in 1982 Cri LJ 2230 (Delhi), in support of its finding. The prosecution was accordingly quashed. The Union of India is aggrieved and has come up in appeal by special leave.

5. It is submitted that since the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce case, (1982 Cri LJ 2230) (supra) has been over-ruled by this Court therefore the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained. It is urged that a nationalised bank is a "Corporation" and not a body corporate as held in Oriental Banks case (supra) and, therefore, the respondent would be squarely covered by the definition of a public servant as per Section 21 Twelfth (b) of IPC.

6. In R. C. Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248, this Court with reference to the nationalised banks constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969, held that the nationalised banks are Corporations".

7. The controversy, whether a nationalised bank is only a body corporate or is a corporation is no longer res-integra. On account of the nationalisation, the nationalised banks are not only established by a Central Act but are also owned and controlled by the Central Government.

8. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, (1990) 4 SCC 406 : (AIR 1991 SC 855), specifically considered the question whether a nationalised bank is a corporation or a body corporate and held :

"Keeping in view the provisions of the Banks Nationalisation Act we are of the opinion that the nationalisation of bank is a corporation established by a Central Act and it is owned and controlled by the Central Government."

(Emphasis ours)

The Constitution Bench expressly over-ruled the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the Oriental Bank of Commerce case, (1982 Cri LJ 2230), (supra) and held that the distinction drawn in that judgment between a body corporate and corporation in relation a nationalised bank i