The employees of Nationalised Banks are not "public servants" within the meaning of S. 21, Indian Penal Code.

( 1 ) AN important question of law raised which falls for consideration in these two Revisional Applications is : whether the employees of Nationalised Bank could be held to be Public Servants within the meaning of S. 21, Indian Penal Code, who could be tried by Special Courts for offences triable by such Courts, The question arises in the following facts and circumstances.

( 2 ) THE accused-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) was the Branch Manager of the Bank of India, Sarat Bose Road Branch, Calcutta, during the material time. On account of some misunderstanding and grudge of some Senior Officers of the said Bank the relevant case has been instituted against him (petitioner) on the allegation that he had misappropriated a total sum of Rs. 4,000/- only from the Bank in respect of deposits made by the loanees by showing short deposits in the relevant Register and Deposit Slips on 16-3-82, 19-4-82 and 10-6-82, as alleged in the F. I. R. , and thereby committed offences punishable under Ss. 409, 420, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter shortened into I. P. C.); read with S. 5 (2), read with S. 5 (1) (d) and 5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. On the aforesaid allegations G. R. Case No. 3016 of 1983 was started, investigated by the C. B. I. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted in the case on 4-12-85. The petitioner is being prosecuted therefor before the First Special Court at Alipore (presumably treating him to be a Public Servant ). The relevant case has been split up into two cases, pending before the aforesaid Special Court, numbered as S. P. Cases Nos. 10 and 11 of 1985, arising out of the aforesaid G. R. Case No. 3016 of 1983. But no charge has been framed against him (petitioner) as yet even though the relevant proceedings are pending for about 9 years. The petitioner had thus filed applications before the Court below for his discharge on the grounds stated therein, which had been rejected by the learned Judge on due consideration for the reasons recorded in his impugned orders dated 28-6-91. Hence the instant two Revisional Applications directed against the aforesaid order of the Court below, praying the Court for quashing the relevant proceedings on the grounds set forth therein. The two Revisional Applications, involving common questions of facts and law, had been heard analogously on common consent, to be governed by a common judgment.

( 3 ) THOUGH a number of grounds have been taken in the Revisional Applications for quashing of the relevant two proceedings, it was mainly urged during the hearing that the petitioner, not being a Public Servant, cannot by tried by the Special Court. It was also urged that even though the charge-sheet in the relevant case had been filed in 1985, no charge has been framed in the relevant cases as yet despite lapse of more than 9 years, in the meanwhile, infringing his right to speedy trial, as guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. The other grounds taken in the applications had not been urged during the hearing; nor could be; ill-made, as they are.

( 4 ) TO the second ground of delay first. The relevant case, being G. R. Case No. 3016 of 1985, appears to have been started as far back as 1983. The C. B. I. is stated to have investigated the case and had submitted charge-sheet therein on 4-12-85. The relevant case could not be disposed of as yet despite lapse of about 9 years, in the meantime. There has indeed been quite some delay in the disposal of the relevant case. Let us now consider whether the delay in the trial of the petitioner could be deemed to have amounted to infringement of his right to speedy trial, as urged on his behalf.

( 5 ) IT was in 1979 that the Supreme Court had declared in Hussainara Khatoon's case, (1979) 3 SCR 169: 1979 Cri L. J. 1036: (AIR 1979 SC 1360) that the right to speedy trial is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Art. 21 of the Constitution of