H.H.KANTHARIA, J - (1.) The next question of law that arises for consideration in this group of criminal revision applications is, whether employees of nationalised Banks are public servants within the meaning of Clause 12 (b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to these revision applications are as under--- In special Case Nos. 44 and 50 of 1978 accused No. 1, L.D. Kanchan, who was working as Branch Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank, Byculla Branch, Bombay was prosecuted in the Court of the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, Bombay, along with others, by the Central Bureau of Investigation, on the allegations that in the months of April to July, 1977 he entered into criminal conspiracy with others for committing offences of cheating the Indian Overseas Bank by allowing the other accused persons to open Bank accounts in the names of fictitious firms and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, forged promissory notes and bogus purchase bills and allowed them to obtain large amounts of loans on the strength of the said forged documents. He and others, therefore, were charged for offences punishable under sections 120-B, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and further he being Public servant for committing an offence of criminal misconduct, punishable under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. At the hearing, he made an application before the Special Judge that he was not a public servant and hence an offence under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Corruption Act was not applicable to him. The learned Special Judge heard arguments on this point and by his order dated 14th August, 1987 held that an employee of a nationalised bank cannot be regarded as a Public servant within the meaning of Clause 12(b) of section 21 of the Indian penal Code. For coming to such a conclusion, the Special Judge relied upon a judgment of this Court (S.M. Daud, J.) in (N. Vaghul and others v. State of Maharashtra and others) 1987 Cri.L.J. 385. He accordingly discharged all the accused persons. It appears that many identical matters were pending hearing and final disposal in the court of the Special Judge and in accordance with his view, as above, he discharged all the accused persons in all those cases also.
(3.) Being aggrieved, the Central Bureau of Investigation, through the State of Maharashtra, filed these revision applications.;