- (1.)THESE petitions involve common questions on law and facts and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order. A private complaint u/s. 7, 8, 9, 12, 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 405, 409, 420, 34 and 114 of Indian Penal Code came to be filed by respondent no.2 herein on 15.03.2005 before the Court of learned Addl. Principal City Sessions and Special Judge, Ahmedabad against the petitioners and the Company inter alia alleging that the accused persons, the petitioners herein, who are the Administrators, Directors / Owners of a registered Company, named, Core Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., had borrowed loan to the tune of more than Rs.300 Crores from different Banks / Financial Institutions, in connivance with the Bank officials of the concerned Banks and subsequently, did not make payment of the loan amount and thereby, committed fraud with the Banks / Financial Institutions. The said private complaint was numbered as Inquiry Case No.1/2005.
(2.)ON the said complaint, the Court below directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ahmedabad (for short, 'the ACB') to carry out investigation u/s.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') and to submit Report within three months by order dated 31.03.2005. After carrying out necessary investigation, the investigating agency filed a Final Report u/s.173 of the Cr.P.C. dated 19.06.2006 praying for B-Final Summary. Against the aforesaid Report, respondent no.2 preferred a Protest Application. After hearing both the sides, by order dated 11.09.2007, the Court below directed the ACB to appoint a Senior Officer of the rank of Assistant Director and to carry out a detailed investigation, particularly, with respect to the alleged role played by bank officials. Pursuant to the above order dated 11.09.2007 passed by the Court below, the ACB carried out further investigation and thereafter, submitted a B-Summary Report dated 25.01.2008, the contents of which were similar to its earlier Report dated 19.06.2006. However, the said Report was rejected by order dated 27.02.2008, which reads as under;
'The report dated 19.06.2006 filed under Section 173 of the CRPC which is on the record at Exh.15 is hereby ordered to be rejected. The protest petition filed by the complainant is hereby allowed. Cognizance is hereby taken with regard to commission of offences punishable u/s.405, 409, 420 of Indian Penal Code read together with Section 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read together with Section 7 and 13(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The present case is ordered to be registered as Special Case. Summons be issued against the concerned accused and be made returnable on 28.03.2008. The complainant is hereby granted the necessary permission to take appropriate steps for further progress in proceeding with the matter herein and also is directed to prepare a list of witnesses and documents and is further permitted to seek appropriate reliefs for inclusion of those responsible bank officials whose names have not been brought on record despite specific orders of this Court. The Office is directed to register the present inquiry proceedings as a Special Case. The inquiry proceedings, accordingly, stand appropriately disposed of'.

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the private complaint filed against them and the orders passed thereon by the Court below.

I have heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. When the matters were earlier listed on 18.04.2011, the following order was passed;

'Learned counsel, Mr. V.H. Brahmbhatt appearing for the respondent is not present though the matter was called out thrice during the course of the day. Learned counsel Mr. Virat Popat submitted that learned Senior Advocate, Mr. S.V. Raju, was to appear for the petitioner but he is busy in another Court. Hence, the hearing is adjourned.'

(3.)EVEN today, when the matter was called out, none was present on behalf of respondent no.2-original complainant. Therefore, the Court considered the Written Submissions filed on behalf of respondent no.2, which forms part of the record of Criminal Misc. Application No.4336/2008, at Page-156.
In the impugned complaint filed by respondent no.2, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and other accused persons, who are alleged to be Bank officials. However, other than the names of the petitioners, the complainant has not provided the names of those Bank officials, who are alleged to be involved in the crime in question, though specific allegations have been made in the complaint implicating the Bank officials. The complainant has sought to invoke the penal provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioners. Here, it is required to be noted that the petitioners herein are not 'public servant', as defined under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complainant himself has averred in the complaint that the petitioners are the Administrators, Directors and Owners of a Private Limited Company. For attracting the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is mandatory that the accused is a 'public servant'.