JUDGMENT - S.C. MALTE, J. :--These appellants/accused have preferred this appeal against their conviction under various sections. Initially, in all four accused were being prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B, all read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and also under section 5(1)(c) and section 5(1)(b) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The accused were tried before the Special Judge, Solapur, who was appointed as Special Judge under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Judge acquitted accused No. 1. The trial Judge, however, convicted accused No. 2 (appellant No. 1) for offence under section 409 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default R.I. for one year. He was also convicted under section 477-A read with section 109 I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default R.I. for three months. The appellant No. 1 (accused No. 2) was further convicted under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default R.I. for three months. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 (original accused Nos. 3 4) were convicted under section 408 of I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for one year. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were also convicted under section 477-A I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default R.I. for three months. Against that conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred by these accused.

2. It is not necessary to go into the details of the allegations made against these accused. The matter, in this case, can be disposed of on technical point regarding jurisdiction. The Advocate for the appellants submitted before me that none of these accused were public servants, and the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were not at all attracted. It was, therefore, contended that the Special Judge appointed under the provisions of the said Act, had, as such, no jurisdiction to try the case. Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 which was then applicable to the case, prescribes punishment in respect of criminal misconduct committed by a public servant. As per the Act, (Amending Act, 1988), section 6, a Special Judge is required to be appointed by the State for a particular area for holding the trial of the cases falling under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the offences punishable under sections 161, 162, 163, 164, 165 or 165-A of the I.P.C. The conspiracy to commit such offences also are covered by that section. It is, thus, obvious that if the public servant commits criminal misconduct, the case is entrusted for trial to a Special Judge constituted under the said Act. Obviously, therefore, that is a creation of special jurisdiction of the Judge to try such cases. It was, therefore, contended before me that if none of the accused belonged to category of public servant as is understood under the said Act, the jurisdiction exercised by the Special Judge in holding the trial and convicting the accused, was without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of that proposition, my attention was invited to the case reported in 1993(2) Bom.C.R. 286, (Hanmant Janardhan Patil v. The State of Maharashtra)1. In that case, a Single Bench of this Court was considering the similar case in which office bearers of the Co-operative Society, were facing prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. His Lordship addressed questions raised before him. These, briefly, stated were :

(a) Whether the appellants who were admittedly office bearers of a Co-operative Society during the relevant period, can be categorised as public servants withi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document