STATE OF PUNJABversusKARNAIL SINGH

                        [2008] 13 S.C.R. 800


A                      STATE OF PUNJAB
                                v.
                         KARNAIL SINGH
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1505 of 2008)
                     SEPTEMBER 22, 2008
8
        [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]

        Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7 and 13(2) -
  Framing of charges against Respondent-Manager of Punjab
c Agricultural Development Bank under the PC Act - Quashing
  of, by High Court holding that Respondent did not fall within
  the definition of "public servant" - Held: High Court did not
  analyse the factual position and also did not consider rel-
  evance of the provisions of Punjab Act of 1957, which Appel-
  /ant adverted to, to contend that Respondent was a public ser-   r·
D
  vant - Consequently, matter remitted to High Court for fresh
  consideration - Punjab Cooperative Agricultural Development
  Banks Act, 1957 - ss.2(d), (f), (g) and 10.
        Respondent was Manager in the Punjab Agricultural
E Development Bank. The Trial Court framed charges
  against him for offences punishable under ss.7 and 13(2)
  of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Respondent
  challenged the judgment by filing criminal revision peti-
  lion. High Court held that Respondent did not fall within
F the definition of "public servant" and allowed the petition
                                                                   ..
  thereby settint! aside the judgment of the Trial Court.
  Hence the present appeal.
        Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
    Court for fresh consideration, the Court
G
         HELD: The High Court has not analysed the factual
    position. It is also not known whether the details asked
    by the High Court like the total share capital of the Bank
    and as to whether it falls within the definition of Govern-
H                               800
                   STATE OF PUNJAB v. KARNAIL SINGH                  801


       ment Company were supplied or not. The effect of the af- A
       fidavit filed by the Managing Director, Punjab State Co-
       operative Agricultural Development Bank also was not
       considered. Appellant has referred to the provisions of
       the Punjab Cooperative Agricultural Development__Ba11ks
       Act, 1957 and various provisions thereof e.g. Section 2(d), B ·
       2(f), 2(g) and Section 10 to contend that revision petitioner
       was a public servant. The High Court was required to
       consider the relevance of the aforesaid provisions and
       other provisions of the said Punjab Act of 1957. [Para 6]
       [803-A-C]
                                                                            c
             CRIMlNALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
        No. 1505 of 2008
            From the final Judgment and Order dated 20/7/';.006 of
       the High Court of Punjao and Haryana at Chandigarh iri Crl.
·...   Revision No. 1320 of 2004                                   .D
           K.K. Khurana, A.A.G., A.K. Mehta and Kuldip Singh for the
       Appellant.
             Gagan Gupta. for the Respondent.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     E
              )       .

             Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J 1. Leave granted.
            2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned
..     Single Judge of the Punjab ahd Haryana High Court allowing
       the Criminal revision petition filed by the respondent.              F" ·
              3. Challenge before the High Court was to the"'order d.ated
       · 11.5.2004 passed by learned Special Judge, Mansa, framing
         charges against the respondent for offence punishable under
         Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in
        short the 'Act'). The respondent was working as a Manager of G
         Punjab Agricultural Development Bank at Budladha. The stand
         before the High Court was that the writ petitioner was not cov-
        ered within the definition' of "public servant" as the Bank was
        only a Co-operative Society and not receiving aid of any kind
        from the Government. An affidavit was~ filed by the Managing H
                                               ."=.:·•


    802       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2008] 13 S.C.R.


A Director, Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development
  Bank Limited to the effect that State Government had invested
  Rs.50 lakhs as share capital in the Bank and Bank is controlled
  by the State Government. It was also argued that the Managing
  Director was an official of the State Government of the desig-
B nation of Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies and, there-
  fore, the writ petitioner was a "public servant". The High Court
  wanted to know the total share capital of the Bank and as to
  whether it fall::; within the definition of Government Company as
  defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. After
c referring to sub-clause (ix) of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act
  the High Court came to an abrupt conclusion that the charges
  had been framed relying on the aforesaid clause, but on the
  facts it cannot be said that the revision petitioner falls within the
  definition of "public servanf'. Accordingly, it allowed the revision
D petition and Special Judge, Mansa's order dated 11.5.2004                 .,.. .
  was set aside.
        4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appel-
  lant submitted that a bare reading of sub-clause (ix) of clause
  (c) of Section 2 of .the Act makes the position clear that the re-
E spondent was a "public servant".
         5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
  submitted that the essential ingredients to cover the respon-
  dent within the definition of "Public servant" are absent and,
  therefore, the High Court was justified in allowing the revision
                                                                                     •
F petition. Section 2(c)(ix) reads as follows:
          "Any person who is the president, secretary or other office-
          bearer of a registered co-operative society engaged in
          agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having
          received any financial aid from the Central Government or
G
          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 compaily as defa1ed in
          Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1) of 1956."
H
            STATE OF PUNJAB v. KARNAIL SINGH                803
                  [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

       6. The High Court has not analysed the factual position. It A
is also not known whether the details asked by the High Court
like the total share capital of the Bank and as to whether it falls
within the definition of Government Company were supplied or
not. The effect of the affidavit filed by the Managing Director
also was not considered. Learned counsel for the appellant has B
referred to the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Agricul-
tural Development Banks Act, 1957 (in short the 'Punjab Act')
and various provisions thereof e.g. Section 2(d), 2(f), 2(g) and
Section 10 to contend that revision petitioner was a public ser-
vant. Needless to say the High Court was required to consider c
the relevance of the aforesaid provisions and other provisions
of Punjab Act.
     7. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the High
Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration.
                                                                  D
     8. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
8.8.8.                                        Appeal allowed.