Point of Law: Golden rule of interpretation for any penal legislation is to interpret same strictly, unless any constitutional considerations are involved, and in cases of ambiguity, benefit of same should enure in favour of accused.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner in the subject petition calls in question registration of crime against him in Crime No. 7/2021, for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (‘the Act’ for short) pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapura.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, are as follows:

The petitioner at the relevant point in time was working as a General Manager of Nandini Milk Products, a unit of Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers’ Federation Limited (‘KMF’) the apex body for cooperative movement in Karnataka. The petitioner joins the service of KMF in the year 1997, as a Technical Officer and from time to time had been promoted to higher echelons of office. The issue in the case at hand is not with regard to the service condition of the petitioner.

3. A Police Inspector of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Central Zone, Bangalore (‘ACB’) submits a source report to the Superintendent of Police on 20-11-2021. After thorough scrutiny of the documents of the petitioner with regard to assets, liabilities and annual returns, he holds that disproportionate assets of the petitioner were to the tune of 107.70%. Based upon the said source information report, a crime comes to be registered against the petitioner on 23-11-2021 for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Act. The house and the property of the petitioner were searched and investigation is continued and is said to be in progress. At that point in time, the petitioner knocks the doors of this Court in the subject petition seeking quashing of registration of crime itself in Crime No. 7 of 2021.

4. This Court by its order dated 09-03-2022 had granted an interim order of stay on a preliminary submission made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that employees of KMF would not be public servants within its meaning as obtaining under the Act and therefore, further investigation in the case of the petitioner has been stalled.

5. Heard Sri K. Shashikiran Shetty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Manmohan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

6. The learned senior counsel would urge a solitary contention that the petitioner being an employee of KMF throughout his career as he joins as Technical Officer, and at the relevant point in time, was working as General Manager and therefore, would not become a public servant within the meaning of ‘public servant’ under the Act. He further submits that the very registration of crime by the ACB was one without jurisdiction and any further steps taken by the ACB are all acts without jurisdiction. He would seek annulment of entire proceedings. Reliance is also placed on a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.M.F. and District Milk Unions Retired Employees Kshemabhivridhi Vedike and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2020 (4) KLJ 560 [W.P. No. 11224 of 2016 decided on 9th March, 2020] to buttress his contention that employees of KMF are not Government servants for any benefits whatsoever. Therefore, the ACB could not have registered any crime against the petitioner.

7. On the other hand, Sri P.N. Manmohan, learned Special Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions of the learned senior counsel to contend that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in C. Krishnegowda vs. State of Karnataka, Crl. Pet. No. 2801 of 2021 decided on 15th July 2021 has addressed the very issue and held that an employee of Nirmithi Kendra is a public servant and the ACB would have jurisdiction to register a crime against a Project Manager of Nirmithi Kendra. He would contend that the petitioner is also on the same footing and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof, the only issue that falls for my cons