- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. The only question involved in the present revision is whether employee of Nationalised Banks such as R. C. Rupana, the appli cant, would be included within the term "public servant" being trial by Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) for offence punishable under the Prevention of Cor ruption Act ?
(2.) 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 under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (l) (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".
(3.) THE order sheet reveals that the prosecution made several applica tions for listing of this case failing which they made an application before the Hon the Chief Justice for expedite hearing of the revision because the proceed ings in the trial court were stayed and, according to them, the matter was serious. THE Hon. the Chief Justice has directed for expedite 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 Secretary 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 reported 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 C. B. I, this revision must be dismissed for the reasons appearing hereinafter.;