Charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against a bank manager were quashed by the High Court on the ground that he was not a public servant. The Supreme Court set aside that order, holding the factual position and the relevant Punjab Act provisions were not considered, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 800
A
STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
KARNAIL SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1505 of 2008)
8
SEPTEMBER 22, 2008
[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 cAgricultural Development Bank under thePC 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 relevance of the provisions of Punjab Act of 1957, which Appel- D_/ant adverted to,to contend that Respondent was_apublic ser- 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 EDevelopment Bank. The TrialCourtframed 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 petilion. High Court held that Respondent did not fall within Fthe definition of "public servant" andallowed the petition thereby settint! aside the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence the present appeal.
r·
..
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 Govern800
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. KARNAIL SINGH
801
c
ment Company were supplied or not. The effect of the afA fidavit filed by the Managing Director, Punjab State Cooperative 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]
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.
..
F" ·
"'
."=.:·•
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 desigB nation of Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies and, therefore, 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.
.,.. .
"Any person who is the president, secretary or other officebearer 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 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."
G
•
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. KARNAIL SINGH 803 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
D
8.8.8.
Appeal allowed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Manager of a cooperative agricultural development bank is a "public servant" under Section 2(c)(ix) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Whether the High Court erred in quashing charges without analysing the factual position and the Punjab Cooperative Agricultural Development Banks Act, 1957.
7 provisions across 3 enactments
State of Punjab
Karnail Singh
Arijit Pasayat
J.M. Panchal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
