The main legal point established is the interpretation of the definition of a 'public servant' under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and its application to employees of government corporations established by legislative enactments.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant petition stands preferred by the petitioner herein for quashing of FIR No. 81 of 10.3.2009, under Sections 353, 332, 34 of IPC, with Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.

2. The short ground which stands addressed before this Court for quashing of FIR aforesaid stands anvilled upon the factum of the offence constituted against him under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code standing unavailable to stand cast by the prosecution against him on the ground of respondent No.2 herein not at the time apposite to the occurrence being either a ‘public servant’ or performing public duties. He proceeds to submit that respondent No.2 herein is merely a driver engaged by HRTC, employees whereof do not fall within the ambit of the definition of a ‘public servant’ as embodied in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, relevant portion whereof stands extracted hereinafter. He thereupon contends of no offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code standing constituted against him.

“ ……………………….. Twelfth-Every person-

(a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government;

(b) In the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government Company as denied in section 617 of the Companies Act.”

3. A bare reading of the apposite provisions of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code unravels of its embodying therein the categories of persons who fall within the ambit of ‘public servant’ besides unfolds the apparent fact of any employee in whatever capacity performing service or drawing pay from a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central Provincial or State Act or a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 standing encompassed within the ambit of the definition of a ‘public servant’. Obviously with respondent No.2 herein standing engaged as a driver by the HRTC, the latter being a juristic entity owning its existence to a legislative enactment nomenclatured as “the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950”. Consequently with respondent No.2 standing engaged as a driver by HRTC, a juristic entity constituted by a legislative enactment nomenclatured as “the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950’, as a corollary with respondent No. 2 drawing pay from a corporation established by a statute besides his being in service of a corporation whose juristic existence has sprung from a legislative enactment renders respondent No.2 to be a ‘public servant’. Consequently if any penal misdemeanor within the ambit of Section 332 of IPC stood committed by the petitioner upon respondent No.2 prima-facie rendered attractable qua the petitioner herein the penal consequences spurring from his allegedly committing the aforesaid penal misdemeanor. The learned counsel for the petitioner cannot with any force contend of respondent No.2 being merely an employee of HRTC would not render him to come within the ambit and definition of a public servant whereupon his concert to exculpate his incriminatory role if any constituted under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, being liable for its standing discountenanced by this Court.

4. Further more the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 1945, Mohd. Hadi Raja versus State of Bihar and another, the relevant paragraph whereof which stands extracted hereinafter, though underscoring the factum of the statutory protection available under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to a public servant other than the ones in the employment or of drawing pay while in service of government companies or public undertaking besides making being a loud communication of officers, employees of government companies or employees of a public undertaking standing stripped of entitlement to receive the protection envisaged in