Important points:
Any grant or any aid at the time of establishment of the society or in any construction or in any structural concept or any aspect would be an aid-The term 'aid' has not been defined. A sprinkle of aid to the society will also bring an employee within the definition of 'public servant'. The concept in entirety has to be understood in the backdrop of corruption

JUDGMENT :

The writ petitioner is Accused No.13 in the case C.C.No.32/2003 pending in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur.

2. There are altogether 13 accused in the case. The offences alleged against them are punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under Sections 409, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Accused 1 to 11 were the office-bearers of the Indian Coffee Board Workers Co-operative Society Limited No.4227 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'). Accused No.12 is a contractor. Accused No.13, the petitioner herein, was the Managing Partner of the establishment by name M/s. Enarc Consultants, Architects and Engineers.

4. The final report against the accused was filed in the Special Court by the Dy.S.P, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thrissur. The charge against the accused, as stated in the final report, is that Accused 1 to 11 hatched a criminal conspiracy during the period 1996-1998 with Accused Nos. 12 and 13 and pursuant to such conspiracy, entrusted the construction work of the new restaurant building of the Society and the renovation work of the existing restaurant building of the Society to Accused Nos.12 and 13 and that Accused 1 to 11, by abusing their position as public servants, caused to get undue pecuniar advantage to Accused Nos.12 and 13 by paying them higher rates and higher fees and thereby caused wrongful loss of Rs.6,48,213/- to the Society.

5. The petitioner filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') in the trial court. Learned Special Judge considered the aforesaid application along with the applications for discharge filed by the other accused persons. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, as per Ext.P2 order, learned Special Judge dismissed the application for discharge filed by the petitioner.

6. Accused No.13 has filed this writ petition, praying that Ext.P2 order may be set aside and the application for discharge filed by him in the trial court may be allowed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. The petitioner has preferred to file a writ petition to challenge the order of the trial court dismissing the application for discharge filed by him. The writ petition contains a prayer for allowing the application for discharge filed by him in the trial court. Even then, the petitioner has not chosen to produce in the writ petition a copy of the discharge application.

9. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the Society is not one registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Accused 1 to 11 are not public servants who come under the purview of Clause (ix) of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore, the offences alleged against the petitioner in relation to the acts allegedly committed by Accused 1 to 11 will not stand against him.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has elaborated the aforesaid contention by submitting that the Society is not receiving and it has not received any financial aid from the Central Government or the 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. It is contended that the office-bearers of such a society will not come under the definition of 'public servant' given in Clause (ix) of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel has placed heavy reliance upon the decision of this Court in India Coffee Board Workers Cooperative Society Limited v. State of Kerala (ILR 2017 (3) Ker 480) in support of his contention.

11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the decision referred to above was rendered by this Court in the context of Section 32 of the Kerala C