The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1952, Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947, and Kerala State Amendment Act 27 of 1962 in determining the jurisdiction of the Special Judge.

1. These petitions were heard together by a Full Bench as they raised the question of the correctness of a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Sahadevan v. State of Kerala (1976 KLT.134). The questions raised are: whether the Special Judge, Trichur, appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1952 had jurisdiction to try the cases in question in respect of the offences charged; and whether the reasoning and the conclusion of the Division Bench ruling in 1976 KLT.134, which had considered a similar question, can be said to be correct.

2. Crl. M. P. No. 862 of 1976 is by the 10th accused in C. C. No. 76 of 1976 on the file of the Special Judge, Trichur. The offences charged are under S.120-B, 408, 465, 467, 477 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and S.5 (1) (c) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The 10th accused is a member of the Executive Committee of the Co-operative Society No. R.192, Chalakudy.

3. In Crl. M. P. No. 1096 of 1976 the two petitioners are charged in C. C. No. 32 of 1975, with offences under S.408 and 477-A of the I. P. C and S.5 (1) (c) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for misappropriation of funds of the Arimbur Service Co-operative Society. The 1st petitioner is the Secretary and the 2nd petitioner is the Head-clerk of the Society.

4. In Crl. M. P. No. 1093 of 1976 the sole accused is charged under S.408, 465, 471 and 477-A of the I.P.C. and S.5 (1) (c) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The accused was the Secretary of the Arimbur Service Co-Operative Society.

5. Counsel for the petitioners in the above three petitions alone addressed arguments before us. No arguments were addressed in Crl. M. P. Nos. 910 and 1076 of 1976. In Crl. M. P. No. 910 of 1976, the charge is under S.408 and 477-A of the IPC and S.5 (1) (c) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused was the Secretary of the Ernakulam Milk Supply Union. In Crl. M. P. No. 1076 of 1976 the charge is under S.408 of the IPC. and S.5 (1) (c) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused was the Secretary of the Wadakkancherry Service Co-operative Society.

6. S.21 of the IPC. defines the term'public servant'. As it now stands there are twelve clauses with three explanations to the last one. Clause (1) has been deleted; clauses (11) and (12) are later additions; and the explanations appear in their present form all as a result of amendments effected from time to time. None of the clauses take in Directors, Executive Committee Members or Servants or employees etc. of a Co-operative Society within the definition.

7. There are a series of special Acts which contain provisions that certain classes of persons shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of S.21 of the IPC. A list of such Acts would be found collected and set out, for instance, in Sir Hari Singh Gour's commentary on the Indian Penal Code (9th Edn. (1972) Vol. I Footnote 3 at p. 179, page 184 and 194). To mention only a few, such provisions are found in The Railways Act, The Presidency Courts of Small Causes Act, The Factories Act, The Merchant Shipping Act etc.

8. Chapter IX of the IPC. is entitled: 'Offences by or relating to public servants', and comprises of S.161 to 171. In regard to the offence under S.161 of the IPC. (Bribery) the question arose whether prior sanction under S.197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and under S.270 of the Government of India Act 135, were necessary before the commencement of a criminal prosecution. It was held in Gills case (AIR. 1948 Privy Council 128) and in Phanindra Chandra v. The King (AIR. 1949 Privy Council 117) that sanction under neither or the Sections was necessary, as bribery was not something which a public servant was required or expected to commit in the discharge of his duties as a public servant, and the Sections required sanction only for such acts.

9. Meanwhile, even before the above rulings of the Privy Council, the Prevention of Corruption Act II of