Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SANJIB BANERJEE, M. SATHYANARAYANAN, SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, JJ.
K. Subramanian - Petitioner
Versus
State through The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.RC(MD) No. 612 of 2020 & Crl. M.P.(MD) No. 5514 of 2020
Decided On : 29-04-2021
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 2(c)(ix), 7 and 13[2] read with 13[1][d] - Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowances Act, 1981 - Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 - Section 2[19] - Agricultural Jewel Loan - 'Public servant'' - Illegal gratification for returning jewels - Defacto-complainant approached revision petitioner for return of pledged jewels by him - Revision petitioner obtained signature of defacto-complainant, as if jewels pledged by him were returned and asked him to come on another day and, accordingly, defacto-complainant went to office of Society and requested revision petitioner to return pledged jewels - Defacto-complainant again went to office of Society and, in light of reiteration of demand made by petitioner, paid amount which was said to have been accepted by petitioner by way of illegal gratification for returning jewels - Held, In petitioner's capacity Secretary to relevant registered co-operative society engaged in agriculture, and receiving financial aid from one of the Government bodies specified in Section 2(c)(ix) of Act, petitioner was required to discharge such duty in which community to which relevant registered co-operative society catered had an interest - That would also make petitioner a public servant under Section 2(c)(viii) of Act of 1988 in relation to the work done; in addition to petitioner being a public servant in terms of Section 2(c)(ix) Act - To repeat, petitioner has to be regarded as a public servant within the meaning of both Section 2(c)(viii) and 2(c)(ix) of Act of 1988 and petitioner's dealing with complainant must be seen to be in course of the public duty that petitioner was required to discharge in his official capacity qua relevant registered co-operative society - It is made clear that observations/findings made herein, are for purpose of answering the Reference and this Court has not gone into merits of case of prosecution or defence to be projected by the petitioner/accused – Order accordingly.
ORDER :
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.
1. INTRODUCTORY:-
The revision petitioner, viz., K.Subramanian, filed Crl.RC.[MD] No.612 of 2020 on the file of the Madurai Bench of this Court, challenging the order dated August 17, 2020, passed in Crl.MP.[MD] No.147 of 2020 in Spl.CC.No.1 of 2019, on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The revision petitioner, was working as the Secretary of TN.SPL 150, Mettupatti Primary Agricultural Credit Society, Ramanathapuram, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
The defacto-complainant, viz., I.Ayyadurai, is the member of the said Society and he availed a loan of Rs.60,000/- as ''Agricultural Jewel Loan'' in the said Society by pledging 39.400 grams of jewels.
The Government of Tamil Nadu had waived the agricultural jewel loans as well as payment of interest with a direction to the Societies to return the jewels pledged by the farmers.
Accordingly, the defacto-complainant approached the revision petitioner herein on 04.11.2016 at about 16.00 hours for return of the pledged jewels by him. The revision petitioner herein, obtained the signature of the defacto-complainant, as if the jewels pledged by him were returned and asked him to come on another day and, accordingly, the defacto-complainant went to the office of the Society at about 11.30 hours on 07.11.2016 and requested the revision petitioner herein to return the pledged jewels. The Petitioner herein is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.6,000/- and on negotiation, it was reduced to Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration, to return the jewels.
The defacto-complainant again went to the office of the Society at about 11.45 hours on 10.11.2016 and, in the light of the reiteration of the demand made by the petitioner, paid a sum of Rs.5,000/-, which was said to have been accepted by the petitioner by way of illegal gratification for returning the jewels.
The trap laid in this regard by the 1st respondent / complainant was also successful. Therefore, the petitioner was prosecuted for the commission of the offences under Sections 7 and 13[2] read with 13[1][d] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [in short ''the PC Act''] in Spl.CC.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under the PC Act.
The petitioner filed Crl.MP.No.147 of 2020 in Spl.CC.No.1 of 2019 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge on the ground that the persons working in Cooperative Societies cannot come within the ambit of ''public servant'' and that apart, since the petitioner was employed in a Cooperative Society, it is not amenable to the provisions of the PC Act. It is further contended that the funds of the Society are generated through share capital / membership subscription and also availing loan from the Apex Cooperative Bank at lower rate of interest and lending the same to its members at a higher rate of interest and does not receive any financial aid from the Government.
The 1st respondent / complainant filed the counter affidavit and took a stand that the employees of the Cooperative Society would come under the purview of Section 2[c][ix] of the PC Act and, in the light of the admission made by the petitioner himself that the Society is getting financial aid from the Government for lower interest and giving loan to the members at higher rate of interest and also repaying the loan to the Government, the employees of the Society would come under the purview of the PC Act and prayed for dismissal of the Discharge Petition.
The Trial Court, vide impugned order dated August 17, 2020, passed in Crl.MP[MD] No.147 of 2020 in Spl.CC.No.1 of 2019, accepted the stand of the complainant/1st respondent and held that the petitioner who was the Secretary of the said Society, comes within the purview of ''public servant'' defined under Section 2[c][ix] of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
