IMPORTANT POINT
In construing definition of ‘public servant’ in Clause (c) of Section 2 of the 1988 Act, the court is required to adopt a purposive approach as would give effect to the intention of legislature.

JUDGMENT

Sabina, J.— Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 11 dated 17.3.2009 registered under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and subsequently added Sections 420/467/468/471/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.

3. The question involved in the present case is ‘as to whether the petitioner can be termed as a Public Servant’.

4. A ‘public servant’ as defined in sub-clauses (iii), (viii) and (ix) of Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) reads as follows:

“2. Definition— In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) xxx xxx

(b) xx x xxx

(c) ‘public servant’ means:

(iii) any person in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)

(viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty;

(ix) any person who is the President, Secretary or other office bearer of a registered co-operative society, engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having received any financial aid from the Central Government or a State Government or from any corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or any authority or body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).

Explanation 1—Persons falling under any of the above sub clauses are ‘public servants’, whether appointed by the Government or not.

Explanation 2—Wherever the words ‘public servants’ occur, they shall be understood of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a ‘public servant’, whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that situation.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only those office bearers of the Co-operative Society were to be treated as Public Servant where the Co-operative Society is receiving any financial aid from the Central Government or State Government or from any Corporation established by or under a Central Provincial or State Act or any authority or body owned or controlled by or aided by the Government or Government Company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.

6. Respondent State in its reply in para 3 has specifically stated that the Machiwara Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. has been in receipt of financial assistance/aid from the Central Government, Central Co-operative Bank and NABARD.

7. The question ‘as to whether the petitioner is a public servant or not’ is no longer res integra.

8. It has been held by the Apex Court in Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Venku Reddy1, wherein it was held as under:

“8. From the abovequoted sub-clause (ix) of Clause (c) of Section 2 of the 1988 Act, it is evident that in the expansive definition of ‘public servant’, elected office bearers with President and Secretary of a registered cooperative society which is engaged in trade amongst others in ‘banking’ and ‘receiving or having received any financial aid’ from the Central or State Government, are included although such elected office-bearers are not servants in employment of the Cooperative Societies. But employees or servants of a Co-operative Society which is controlled or aided by the Government, are covered by sub-clause (iii) of Clause (c) of Section 2 of the 1988 Act. Merely because such employees of Co-operative Societies are not covered by sub-clause (ix) alongwith holders of elective offices, High Court ought not have overlooked tha