R.C. Rupana vs State of U.P.

Palok Basu, J.—The only question involved in the present revision is whether employees of Nationalised Banks such as R.C. Rupana, the applicant, would be included within the term �Public Servant� being triable by Special Judge (Anti Corruption) for offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act ?

The short facts are that the applicant was working at the relevant time as Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Jindal Nagar Branch, Ghaziabad. He allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with some other person to make entries and show registering of fake and bogus as well as forged business transactions as a result of which losses amounting to several lakhs of rupees were caused. On investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, it filed a charge sheet against the applicant and others u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code which is the subject matter of case No. 8 of 1982 of the court of Special Judge Anti Corruption, Dehradun.

By an order dated 21-1-1985 the Special Judge framed charges against the applicant and other accused. The charges were read over to the applicant and other accused who pleaded not guilty.

The present revision was filed in this court on behalf of the applicant by his advocate Sri P.M. Gupta, on 5-4-1985 when the same was admitted and the lower court records were also summoned and proceedings in the court of Special Judge were stayed. It may be noted that the only ground taken in the memorandum of revision is as follows: �Because none of the accused was a public servant, as such, the order dated 21st January, 1985 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.�

The order sheet reveals that the prosecution made several applications for listing of this case failing which they made an application before the Hon. the Chief Justice for expedited hearing of the revision because the proceedings in the trial court were stayed and, according to them, the matter was serious. The Hon. the Chief Justice has directed expedited hearing of this revision whereafter the matter was placed before the Court for hearing. On 3-8-1989 Sri P.M. Gupta, Advocate, sent a note to the Bench Secre-tary that he has no instructions in the matter and was withdrawing from the case. To this effect was another letter sent by him on 31-7-1989. Consequently on 3-8-1989 the court noted the withdrawal of Sri P.M. Gupta, Advocate, from the case and issued notice to the revisionist to engage another counsel. It may be remembered that from the order sheet it is apparent that after the matter was listed for hearing repeatedly that the counsel withdrew from the case. Consequently notices were issued to the applicant and as per the office report dated 21-7-1989 it has been personally served upon the applicant. However, when the case was taken up neither the applicant nor any counsel on his behalf appeared.

On examining the record and the material and hearing Sri M.P. Tandon, Learned Counsel for the CBI this revision must be dismissed for the reasons appearing hereinafter.

Three enactments are relevant for purposes of determining whether the applicant would be covered within the word �public servant� as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. These Acts are : (1) The Banking Regulation Act, 1949, (2) The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and of 1980, and (3) The Indian Companies Act, 1956. Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code reads :

Every person 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, will come within the meaning of �public servant�.

Section 46(A) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, says that :

Every Chairman, Director, Auditor, Liquidator, Manager and any other employee of a Banking company shall be deemed to be public servant for purposes of Chapter IX of the IPC.

It may be noted that the said provision came to be incorporated in the original statute by an amendment in the year 1957. Thereafter a second amendment was brought about in 1969 to the main statute which provides as follows:

Without prejudice to the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1965 or any other enactment, the provisions of Section 10, 13 to 15, 17, 19, 21, 23 to 28 (Excluding clause (d) of sub Section (1) 1, 46, 48, 50. 52 and 53 shall apply, so far as may be, to and in relation of the State Bank of India or any corresponding new Bank constituted u/s 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, or a regional rural bank established under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, or any other banking institution notified by the Central Government in this behalf as they apply to and in relation of Banking Companies.

It follows that Section 46-A of the Banking Regulation Act has to be read in conjunction with Section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act of 1970. This Act of 1970 provides :

Every custodian of corresponding new bank shall be deemed to be a �public servant� for purposes of Chapter IX of the IPC.

A combined reading of Section 46A and 51 of the Banking Regulation Act and Section 14 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, and that of 1980, makes it implicit that an employee of a Nationalised Bank would be a Public Servant within the meaning of Chapter IX of the� IPC. Even a look at Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, clarifies that such a person would become a public servant. For, according to the provisions therein, a nationalised bank becomes a body corporate, i.e. a corporation and also becomes a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Act. It has to be noted that while referring to Section 617 in this regard, nationalised banks shall stand covered within the meaning of �other authorities� in the definition of �State� in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This view stands fortified by the decision of our Court reported in 1977 ALJ 922 (S.C. Agarwal�s case) and would get support from the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Ch. Prasad Vs. Smt. J. Vanalatha Devi and Others, .

It thus follows that once such an employee becomes a public servant within the meaning of IPC he comes within the mischief of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and, therefore, the applicant makes himself liable for being tried by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Dehradun.

In view of what has been stated above, there is no force in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 5-4-1985 is vacated. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously. The record shall be transmitted through a personal messenger within two weeks from today.