A Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act is not a corporation established by or under a State Act within the meaning of Section 21(12) of the Indian Penal Code.

( 1 ) IN the instant revision the learned single Judge felt that the law laid down in Madho Ram v. State 1966 All WR HC 421 needs reconsideration. The following question has thus been referred to us: whether a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, is a body created by or under State law within the meaning of sub-clause Twelfth of Section 21 of the indian Penal Code ? sub-clause Twelfth of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:

Twelfth-Every person (a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fee 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 defined in Section 617 of the Companies act, 1956. In view of the wordings of sub-clause (b) of sub-clause 12th of Section 21 of the indian Penal Code, we have reframed the question as under: whether a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act is a corporation established by or under a State Act within the meaning of sub-clause 12th of Section 21 of the indian Penal Code?

( 2 ) THE respondents were charged for an offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act and Sections 409, 120b, 195, 467, 204, 218, 471 and 477 of the Indian Penal code and the cognizance of the case was taken by the Special Judge, Faizabad. The learned special Judge on a consideration of the facts and law placed before him, came to the conclusion that it was not a fit case for framing charges against any of the accused persons who were, therefore, discharged under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State of U. P. has preferred this revision against the said order of the learned Special Judge,

( 3 ) IT seems that before the learned Special Judge it was urged that the accused persons were not public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, However, on behalf of the State it was contended that the District Co-operative Bank, Faizabad of which Sri viswanath Kapoor, Advocate was the Managing Director and Sri Jokhan Singh was the Cashier and Allan Khan was the officiating Manager and Mahraj Bux Singh was the Assistant accountant at the material time, is a corporation established by or under State Act and, therefore/the said accused persons were public servants within the meaning of Section 21 clause 12th, of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Special Judge rejected the contention raised on behalf of the State and observed that the clause "corporation established by or under" has reference to certain public corporations which are established by or under an Act. According to the learned Special Judge, the District Cooperative Bank, Faizabad is not a corporation within the meaning of clause 12th of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code; nor do the aforesaid persons fall within the scope of Section 124 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act and as they are not public servants, Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not attracted, hence the court as Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case.

( 4 ) IT appears that before the learned single Judge it was reiterated on behalf of the State that the district Co-operative Bank, Faizabad, is a corporation established by or under the State Act and, therefore, the respondents 1 to 4 were public servants within the meaning of clause 12th of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and in support of that. contention reliance was placed on a decision of a learned single Judge in Madho Ram v. State 1966 All WR HC 421.

( 5 ) IN Madho Rams case (supra) the learned Magistrate had committed Madho Ram to the Court of Session to stand his trial under Sections 216 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code. Madho Ram was an employee of the Provincial Co-operative Union, Lucknow and the main ground on which the order of commitment was sought to be quashed was that th