The definition of 'public servant' under Section 21 of the IPC does not extend to employees of a cooperative society, thereby nullifying charges against them under Section 409 for criminal breach of trust.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’ and/or ‘the Code’] is preferred taking exception to a Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2012 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh [‘the Revisional Court’, for short] in Criminal Revision no. 18[2] of 2012.

2. The criminal revision petition, Criminal Revision no. 18[2] of 2012 was preferred by the respondent no. 1 herein against an Order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’, for short], in G.R. Case no. 1781 of 2008. By the Order dated 23.04.2012, the Trial Court upon examination of the materials on record; and after hearing the submissions of the prosecution side and the defence side, proceeded to frame a charge under Section 409 , IPC against the three accused persons. After framing the charge, the charge was read over and explained to the three accused persons. On being read over and explained the charge, the three accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Trial Court had also ordered, by the Order dated 23.12.2012, for issuance of summons to the prosecution witnesses and posted the case for recording of evidence.

3. The genesis of the criminal proceeding of G.R. Case no. 1781 of 2008 was a First Information Report [FIR] lodged by one Sri B.K. Nath as Liquidator of M/s Statfed before the Officer In-Charge, Dibrugarh Police Station, Dibrugarh on 20.09.2008. In the FIR, the informant stated that the Assam State Cooperative Marketing & Consumers Federation Ltd. [‘M/s Statfed’, for short] suffered substantial loss due to mismanagement and embezzlement of its fund. It was stated that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam vide a Notification dated 16.06.2006 cancelled the registration of M/s Statfed. With cancellation of the registration, a Liquidator was appointed and the Liquidator took over possession of the assets of M/s Statfed for the purpose of liquidation of its claims and liabilities. The FIR further stated that at the relevant time, the three accused persons viz. [i] Ram Borah, Branch Manager, Statfed [‘the respondent no. 1’]; [ii] Paban Rajkonwar, Sub- Accountant [‘the respondent no. 2’]; and [iii] Prasanta Kumar Dutta, Sub- Accountant, were posted at Dibrugarh Branch of M/s Statfed in the capacities so mentioned. After liquidation, a Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies was made Custodian of the Dibrugarh Branch of M/s Statfed. It was alleged that despite repeated requests, the respondent no. 1-accused did not handover complete charge of Dibrugarh Branch to the said Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies, Dibrugarh-Custodian. Despite directions made by the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent no. 1-accused did not follow such direction. After much efforts, the Custodian took over possession of the entire documents and registrars pertaining to Dibrugarh Branch of M/s Statfed during the period from 11.09.2006 to 15.09.2006 from the respondent no. 1-accused. Thereafter, the Liquidator, M/s Statfed got the entire accounts of Dibrugarh Branch of M/s Statfed for the period from 15.06.2006 to 31.07.2007 audited through four Senior Auditors of the Cooperation Department, Government of Assam. Upon such audit, it came to light that the three accused persons had misappropriated huge amount of money from Dibrugarh Branch of M/s Statfed. It was alleged that the respondent no. 1-accused mis