JUDGMENT

Rajani Dubey, J. - Challenge in the revision petition is to the order dated 11.08.2017 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Dhamtari, whereby the learned Special Judge has rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner against respondents under Sections 409,420/120-B IPC and Section 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the P.C. Act').

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the respondents for registration of offence under Sections 409,420,120-B IPC and Section 13(1) of the P.C. Act interalia, pleading that respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 in the capacity of President, Secretary and Chairman of the Chhattisgarh Table Tennis Association respectively, misappropriate the fund received from the State Government for organising the competition of table tennis. It has been further pleaded that respondents misusing their powers, banned the entry of complainant and her husband in the premises of ground where their children also play. The respondents just to debar the son of the applicant, prepared false documents with regard to date of birth and because of this her son could not participate at National Level Competition. The applicant examined four witnesses in support of complaint and filed various documents. The learned Special Court, vide order dated 11.08.2017, dismissed the complaint on the ground that since the respondents do not fall within the definition of public servant, no offence under the provision of P.C. Act is made out. Hence, this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have misappropriated the public money meant for development of table tennis in the State of Chhattisgarh. He further submits that the complainant filed sufficient material to prove the irregularity being committed by the respondents, but the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint of the applicant only on the ground that original documents/certified copies have not been produced in the case. He also submits that when the learned trial Court found that the case is not triable by Special Judge, it should have been transferred the case to the competent court having jurisdiction to try this. The impugned order being not in accordance with law may be set aside. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell and others V. Ramesh Gelli and others, (2016) 3 SCC 788 and State of Rajasthan V. Fatehkaran Mehdu, (2017) AIR SC 796 .

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. From the record, it is clear that respondent No.1 and 2 are the President and Secretary of Chhattisgarh Table Tennis Association respectively, and the allegation levelled against them by the applicant is that they have misused the fund/public money allotted to them by the State Government. It is also apparent that the complaint was filed on 27.10.2015 and the learned Special Judge sought report from the Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, which it has filed before learned Special Judge on 21.12.2015. The report of Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, shows that there exists no suitable and sufficient ground to investigate the matter by the Anti Corruption Bureau and that the respondents do not fall within the definition of public servant. The question to be considered is whether the respondents are covered under the definition of public servant or not. Section 21 of IPC speaks with the definition of public servant, which is reproduced herein below:

21. "Public servant".-The words "public servant" denote a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following; namely:- [***]

(Second) - Every Commissioned Officer in the Military, 3 [Naval or Air] Forces 4 [ 5 [***] of India];

6 [(Third) - Every Judge including any person empower