D.L.MEHTA,J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated, 26th May, 1988, passed by special Judge, CB( Cases, Jaipur, in the matter of framing of charges against the present petitioner.
(2.) PRESENT petitioner has submitted that the Bank Officer is not a Public Officer within the purview of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted that the Bank is not a Corporation but is Corporate Body. Mr. Jain appearing on behalf of the present petitioner has referred before me the case of N. Vaghul and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 1987 Cr. LJ. 385 in which it has been held under: Section 46A Banking Regulation Act, 1949 lays down that a Chairman, Director, Manager and other employees of banking company shall be deemed to a public servent for the purposes of Chapter IX, Penal Code.' In the Acquisition and Transfer Undertakings Act of 1970, Section 14 prescribes that every custodian of a corresponding new bank, viz , a nationalised bank, shall be deemed to be a public servent, again, 'for the purposes of Chapter IX Penal Code.' Act No. 40 of 1980 in Section 14, repeats the deeming being restricted to Chapter IX Penal Code. Since the banking statute shows a limitation, it will not be permissible to over come these limits, by recourse to the general word used in Clause 12(b) of Section 21 IPC. If the legislature wanted certain specific bank employees to be considered 'Public Servants' for limited purpose, the contrary cannot be held by taking recourse to the wide sweep of Section 21 IPC.
(3.) MR . Jain also referred before me the case of I.P. Chopra v. Ram Sahai 1985 Raj. Cr. Cases 366 where in my brother Justice Kasliwal held that the Bank employee is not a public servant.;