SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Online)(SC) 16

SUPREME COURT
, J
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. District Coop. Central Bank Ltd.
C. R. P. No. 328 of 2001



The definition of 'public servant' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, includes employees of cooperative banks controlled by the government.

Headnote:The Supreme Court analyzed the definition of 'public servant' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, relevantly quoting Section 2(c). It was held that employees of cooperative banks controlled by the government are covered under this definition. The Court found that the High Court erred in its interpretation. The key issue revolved around whether the respondent fell under the wide definition of 'public servant' and the Court reaffirmed the legislature's intent to widen this definition to combat corruption effectively. The appeal was allowed, overturning the High Court's order.

1Special Leave to appeal is granted.

2 The learned counsel appearing for the parties are heard finally on merits of the case.

3 Government of Andhra Pradesh and District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Nellore, through its General Manager, have preferred this appeal challenging the Order dated 26-9-2001 of the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby criminal case instituted against the respondent / accused, who was working as Supervisor in the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Nellore, for alleged offence of accepting bribe punishable under provisions of the ' Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the 1988 Act') has been quashed in proceedings under S.482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr. P.C.')

4 The High Court by the impugned order quashed the criminal case pending against the respondent No. 1 under the 1988 Act on the sole ground that the accused is not a 'public servant' as defined in sub cl. (ix) of Clause.(c) of S.2 of the 1988 Act. In the opinion of the High Court, definition contained in sub cl. (ix) of Clause.(c) of S.2 of the 1988 Act'. In the opinion of the High Court, definition contained in sub cl. (ix) of Clause.(c) of S.2 of the 1988 Act' covers only President. Secretary and other office bearers of a registered cooperative society engaged amongst other business in banking, S.2 of the 1988 Act with relevant Clause.(c) and sub cl. (iii) & (ix) read as under: -
"2. Definition. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a)&(b)......
(c) "Public Servant" means, -
(iii) any person in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in S.617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(ix) any person who is the President, Secretary or other office - bearer of a registered cooperative society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having received any financial aid from the Central Government or a State Government or from any corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or any authority or body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in S.617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);

5 The learned counsel appearing for the State and the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Nellore submit that the definition of 'public servant' in Cl.(c) of S.2 of the 1988 Act is very wide and the respondent / accused who is employed as Supervisor in the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited which is "an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government" in terms of sub cl. (iii) of Cl.(c) of S.2 of the 1988 Act, clearly falls within the definition of 'public servant'.

6 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / accused, who supports the impugned judgment of High Court by placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Gujarat and Another v. Patel Ramjibhai Danabhai and Others etc. ( 1979 (3) SCC 347 ) and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary v. Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Etc. ( 1984 (4) SCC 27 ) contends that on comparative reading of sub-els, (iii) & (ix) of Clause.(c) of S.2 of the 1988 Act, the principle of interpretation 'Generalia Specialibus non derogant' would apply. There being a special provision in sub cl. (ix) which covers only certain holders of offices of the specified cooperative societies, and does not include other employees of such societies, the general provision contained in sub cl. (iii) of Clause.(c) of S.2 of the 1988 Act shall have no application. It is argued that the special provision in sub cl. (ix) shall exclude the general provision in sub cl. (iii).

7 After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, our conclusion is that the High Court is clearly in error in relying on sub cl. (ix) and overlooking sub cl. (iii) of











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top