P. Devadass, J.

A1 and A2 in the Special Case in Spl.C.C. No. 31 of 2014 on the file of the learned Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act (Shortly, hereinafter P.C. Act)/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur, under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

2. The defacto complainant is the elected President of Kottamangalam Panchayat, now in Trippur District. A1 and A2 are land promoters. They were in need of 'No Objection Certificate' (N.O.C.) to sell their plots.

3. The defacto complainant complained to Vigilance and Anti Corruption Unit, Coimbatore, that on 09.08.2008, A1 and A2 have offered him some money, to do them favour and issue them N.O.C.

4. A case in Crime No.14 of 2008 was registered. Investigation was conducted. Evidence collected. The Investigating Officer filed the Final Report for an offence under section 12 of P.C. Act as against A1 and A2.

5. Upon hearing both and on consideration of the final report and the documents attached thereto, on 26.4.2011, the learned Special Judge charged them under section 12 of the PC Act. They have pleaded not guilty to the charges. The trial is yet to take off.

6. At this juncture, they seek quashing of the criminal proceedings.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contend that even taking the allegations as such, the charges framed against them is legally unsustainable. The learned Senior Counsel contended that to charge the petitioners under section 12 of the P.C. Act, the defacto complainant must be a public servant. However, in this case, he is not. The learned Senior Counsel referred to Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act defining a public servant and would submit that the defacto complainant is not in the service or employ of the Panchayat. And he is not receiving any salary or pay from the Panchayat.

8. In this respect, the learned Senior Counsel referred to Section 82 of the Tamilnadu Panchayats Act 1984, as per that the defacto complainant is not entitled to any salary or other remuneration except some allowances. The learned Senior Counsel would point out that in his reply under Right to Information Act, the Assistant Director, Rural Development, Tirupur District stated that the Panchayat President is not receipt of any salary.

9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would also refer to Section 2(c)(viii) of the P.C. Act and submit that a combined reading of Section 83 and 84 of the Tamilnadu Panchayat Act 1984 would show that only the Executive Authority is empowered to regulate a layout and the defacto complainant is not the Executive Authority of the Panchayat. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel referred to the reply received under the Right to Information Act, wherein it is stated that the President is not empowered to regulate any lay out.

10. The learned Senior Counsel would also cite V. Balamurugan v. District Collector, Virudhunagar - 2007(3) CTC 56 (DB) and submit that the Division Bench has held that the executive power of the Village Panchayat vest only with the Executive Authority appointed by the Government and not by the President of the Panchayat.

11. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would also contend that in his reply given under Right to Information Act, the official had replied that the defacto complainant is not a public servant.

12. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the defacto complainant is a public servant. He would draw our attention to Section 2(b) of the P.C. Act, which is in amplification of Section 2(c)(viii) of the Act. He would further submit that the defacto complainant is engaged to do public duty.

13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also submit that in the reply given under the Right to Information Act, it is not stated that the President is not a public servant under the P.C. Act. He had also referred to Section 280 of the Tamilnadu Panchayat Act 1984, wherein obtaining of sancti