The main legal point established is the interpretation of the term 'public servant' as per the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the jurisdiction of the local police to prosecute a public servant under the specified offences.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashment of the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings registered against the petitioner vide Crime No. 47/2015 at Police Station Harda District Harda for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 419, 420, 421, 467, 120- B, 489-A of IPC and under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Chief Executive Officer of Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Hoshangabad. There were complaints in regard to irregularities at Main Branch Harda of District Co-operative Central Bank Hoshangabad. Additional Collector G.K. Mishra, S.S. Solanki SDM Harda, M.K. Prahlad, Nodel Officer of District Co-operative Central Bank and the petitioner inspected the main Branch of the Bank Harda on 22.01.2015 at around 10.45 AM. Mr. Sudarshan Joshi, Incharge of the Branch was found absent. Cashier Bhavana Kale was present. Cash Book of the Branch was inspected and it was noticed as per cash book, there must be a cash amount of Rs. 2,79,82,163.00 in the chase of the Bank. Mr. Sudarshan Joshi, Incharge Manager of the Bank was absent hence, a cash box was opened and it was found that an amount of Rs. 2,81,513.00 in the cash box of the Bank. The report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station by the petitioner himself. Mr. Joshi surrendered at the Police Station along with Cash of Rs. 2,77,00650.00. The same was seized and seizure memo was also prepared. Mr. Joshi in his memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act stated that Mr. Hemant Vyas had induced him that if I would handover money which was in the cache box of the Bank, he would pay me certain commission and when the money would be needed, he return the same. On this promise I had given Mr. Hemant Vyas some time Rs. 10 Lacs, Rs. 20 Lacs, Rs. 30 Lacs and Rs. 40 Lacs. He used to return the money and he used to give commission at the rate of 0.5%. He further stated that Mr. Hemant used to pay commission to Mr. S.K. Prahlad, Bhavana Kale and the present petitioner.

3. On the basis of memorandum, the petitioner was also made accused subsequently and after investigation the police filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the charge-sheet and contended that on the basis of statement of co-accused, he cannot be made accused.

4. On 21.04.2016, the counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner being public servant, the local police had no jurisdiction to prosecute the petitioner in view of the Special Police Establishment Act. This Court vide interim order dated 21.4.2016, stayed further proceedings pending before the Court relying on the judgment of the apex Court in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell v. Ramesh Gelli and others reported in (2016) 3 SCC 788. In such circumstances, this petition is heard and disposed of finally with the consent of the parties.

5. Learned Senior counsel has argued on merits of the case, however, he has restricted his arguments on the ground of competence of the prosecuting Agency to prosecute the petitioner. It is contended by the Senior counsel that the petitioner is a public servant because he was posted at the relevant time as Chief Executive Officer of District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Hoshangabad, hence in view of the provisions of Special Police Establishment Act, the local police has no jurisdiction and authority to prosecute the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned Senior counsel relied on the judgment of the apex Court in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 788 (supra).

6. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecuting Agency has already filed the charge-sheet and the investigation is complete. The case is pending before the Court. At this stage, the jurisdiction to prosecute the petitioner could not be looked int