Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. - (1.) The accused-petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as Managing Director in the Ajmer Urban Cooperative Bank, Ajmer, has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.RC. against the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Ajmer in Criminal Case No.3/2012 whereby the learned Court below has ordered to frame charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) mainly on the ground that the petitioner is not a "public servant" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act.
(2.) The petitioner has been prosecuted and charge-sheet has been filed against him for the aforesaid offence on the premise that the petitioner in his entire service period earned an amount of Rs. 41,63,777/- by way of salary out of which an amount of Rs. 13,31,272/- was expended by him, but at the relevant time assets of the value of Rs. 1,18,76,954/-were found in his possession and thus, the petitioner had in his possession properties valuing more than Rs. 90,44,449/- which is disproportionate to his known source of income for which no satisfactory explanation or account could be furnished by the petitioner. At the time of framing of the charge also it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial Court that the petitioner is not a "public servant" and, therefore, he cannot be charged under the provisions of the Act, but the same was negatived by the learned trial Court on the basis of provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act as well as certain clauses of the bye-laws framed by the Ajmer Urban Cooperative Bank Limited and it was held that prima facie the petitioner is a public servant.
(3.) In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds:- (1) As per sub-clause (ix) of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act, an office-bearer of a registered co-operative society engaged in banking business can be treated to be a "public servant" only when such cooperative society was receiving or had received any financial aid from the Central Government or 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 company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, but it is an admitted fact that Ajmer Urban Cooperative Bank of which the petitioner was Managing Director at the relevant time never received any financial aid from any Government or corporation or any authority or body as mentioned in the aforesaid provision. For this attention was also invited to a certificate dated 27.5.1998 issued by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ajmer. (2) The petitioner cannot be said to be a "public servant" within the meaning of sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act also as the petitioner was never in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Ajmer Urban Cooperative Bank by any stretch of imagination can neither be said to be a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act nor an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company. Merely because the bank is a co-operative society within the meaning of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act 1965 (hereinafter referred to be the Act of 1965) and is registered under the provisions of that Act, it cannot be said that it is an authority or a body owned or controlled by the Government of Rajasthan. (3) It can not also be said that as a Managing Director of the aforesaid bank the petitioner was holding an office by virtue of which he was authorised or required to perform any public duty within the meaning of sub-clause (vii) of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act. (4) At the most it can be said that the aforesaid bank is a private body dealing in business of banking and merely because the day to day affairs of the bank are regulated by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and/or The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, it cannot be said that the aforesaid bank is a body controlled by the Government. The relevant provisions of the aforesaid Acts are of regulatory measures to keep the check and provide guidelines and the main consideration beyond such regulation is that the bank itself may not sink because of its own mismanagement or the interest of the shareholders or people generally may not be jeopardised for that reason and apart from that there is no other interest of the Government in controlling affairs and management of the cooperative banks including that of Ajmer Urban Cooperative Bank and merely on that premise it cannot be said that the Managing Director of the aforesaid bank is a "public servant" within the meaning of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act.;