J U D G M E N T

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD,J The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated

02.02.2018, passed in WP.No.2228 of 2018 wherein, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the challenge raised by the petitioner to the proceedings dated 27.10.2017, seeking sanction for prosecuting the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the letters dated 01.12.2017 and 15.12.2017 by which directions have been issued to initiate prosecution against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was working as a Secretary of the Krishnagiri District National Engineering Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society. The society is of the employees of a private Engineering company for their benefit. He was arrested by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Krishnagiri and a FIR was filed against him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption by letter dated 27.10.2017, issued a letter to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for according sanction of prosecuting the petitioner. Accordingly, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies wrote a letter to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 01.12.2017 to issue necessary instruction to initiate disciplinary proceedings and also for grant of sanction for proceeding under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Challenging the steps taken by the respondents to launch proceedings against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2228 of 2018, contending that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of public servant under Section 2(c)(ix) and therefore, proceedings cannot be initiated against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The petitioner also filed Writ Petition No.28461 of 2019 challenging a circular dated 11.08.2015, issued by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies, by which the Registrar has issued instructions making the Prevention of Corruption Act applicable to the employees of Co- operative Societies on the ground that they are public servants within the definition of Clause(c) of Section (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 02.02.2018, has dismissed both the writ petitions. The instant appeal has been filed against the said judgment.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. This Bench by its order dated 12.02.2020, while reserving judgment recorded the submissions made by the parties. The order reads as under:-

"A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant where a challenge had been raised in respect of a communication seeking permission to prosecute the appellant/petitioner by invoking the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that in view of the definition contained in Section 2(c)(ix), any person who is the President or Secretary or an Office Bearer of a Registered Co-operative Society of the nature defined therein, and the appellant petitioner being the Secretary of such a society, was amenable to the provisions of the Act. Hence, he could be prosecuted under the 1988 Act.

2. The question of the status of the Co-operative Society of which, the appellant petitioner was the Secretary was not gone into. We may, at this stage, record that the Co-operative Society of which the appellant petitioner is the Secretary, is an Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society of the employees of an industrial concern. On such a foundation, the appellant who was the petitioner in the writ petition has come up contending that the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge is not correct inasmuch as without discussing the status of the society, the conclusion drawn that the petitioner/appellant was amenable to the provisions of a prosecution under the Corruption Act, 1988, is an erroneous approach