GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusP. VENKU REDDY

A           GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
                                v.
                         P. VENKU REDDY

                              SEPTEMBER 23, 2002

B              [M.B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.]

                                                                                      ...
          Pr~vention of Corruption Act,   1988 :

          Ss.2(c)(iii) and (ix)-Public servant-Supervisor in District Co-
C   operative Bank-Criminal case against under provisions of the Act-Quashed
    by High court in proceedings uls.482 Cr.P.C. holding that employee is not
    a 'public servant' as defined in sub-clause (ix) o,fclause (c) ofs.2-Held, in
    the expansive definition of 'public serva111' in sub-clause (ix) of Clause (c)
    elected office bearers with President and Secretary ofa registered co-operative
D   society concerned are included although such office bearers are not servants
    in employment thereof-But employees or servants of a co-operative society
    which is.controlled or aided by the Government are covered by sub-clause
    (iii) of Clause (c) of s.2-Respondent employee is covered within the
    comprehensive definition of 'public servan/' under s.2 (c) (iii)-/n construing
    definition of 'public servant' in clause (c) of s.2 court is required to adopt
E   a purpo5ive approach as would give effect 10 the intention of legislature~
    in that view Statement of Objec1s and Reasons contained in the· Bill leading
    to the passing of the Act can be taken assistance of-Order of High Court
    set aside-Third court would proceed wilh the trial of the case againsl 1he
    respondent-:-lnterpretation of Sta1utes-/111ention of legislature.
F        State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Prabhakarrao and Anr .. J.T. (2002)
    Suppl. I SC Sand State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shri Ram Singh, AIR (2000)
    SC 873, relied on.

          Siate of Maharashtra v. laljit Rajshi Shah and Ors., 120021 SCC 699,
G   distinguished.

           State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Pale/ Ramjibhai Danabhai and Ors. e/c.
    elc., p 9791 3 SCC 347 and Alaharashlra Slale Board of Secondary and
    Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and
    Ors .. 1198414 SCC 27, cited.
H                                         538
      GOVT. OF A.P. v. P. VENKU REDDY (DHARMADHIKARI, J.]                  539
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 997 A
of2002.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.2001 of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in WA No. 1163/2001.

                                    WITH                                          B
      Crl. A. 998/2002@SLP (Crl.) No. 1166/2002.

      Ms. K. Amareshwari, Guntur Prabhakar, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms.
Bina Madhavan, Prasanth and Ms. Meera C.R. for Mis. Lawyer's Knit & Co.
for the Appellant.                                                                C
      L. Nageshwara Rao and D. Mahesh Babu, for the Respondent.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      DHARMADHIKARI, J. Special Leave to appeal is granted.                       D
      The learned counsel appearing for the parties are heard finally on merits
of the case.

      Government of Andhra Pradesh and District Co-operative Central Bank
Limited, Nellore, through its. Gener.al Manager, have preferred this appeal       E
challe!}ging the Order dated 26.9.2001 of the Division Bench of High Court
of Aridhra Pradesh whereby criminal case instituted against the respondent/
accused, who was working as Supervisor in the District Co-coperative Central
Bank Limited, Nellore, for alleged offence. of accepting bribe punishable under
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short 'the 1988 Act']
has been quashed in proceedings under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure           F
Code [for short 'Cr.P.C.]

       The High Court by the impugned Order quashed the criminal case
 pending against the respondent no. I under the 1988 Act on the sole ground
 that the accused is not a 'public servant' as defined in Sub-clause (ix) of G
 Clause (c) of Section 2 of 'the 1988 Act'. In the opinion of the High Court,
 definition contained in Sub-clause (ix) ofClause°(c) of Section 2 of 'the 1988
 Act' covers only President, Secretary and other office bearers of a registered
·co-operative society engaged amongst other businesses in banking. Section
 2 of the 1988 Act with relevant Clause (C) and Sub-clauses (iii) and (ix) read
 as under :                                                                     H
                                                                                        •'  I




                                                                                            t
    540                              SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.        ;.

A          "2. Definition.-ln this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

           (a)

           (b)   .............. ..

           (c)   "public Servant" means, -
B
                 (iii) any person 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 th.e
                 Companies Act, 1956 (I of 1956);
c                (ix) any person who is the President, Secretary or other office-
                 bearer of a registered co-operative society engaged in agriculture,
                 industry, trade or banking, receiving or having received any
                 financial aid from the Central Government or a State Government
                 or from any corporation established by or under a Central,
D                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, J 956 (I of 1956);

                                                  [Underlining for emphasis by court)

E         The learned counsel appearing for the State and the District Co-operative
    Central Bank Limited, Nell ore submit foal the definition of 'public servant' in
    Clause (c) of Section 2 of the 1988 Act is very wide and the respondent\accused
    who is employed as Supervisor in the District Co-operative Central Bank
    Limited which is "an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the
    Government" in terms of Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (c) of section 2 of the 1988
F   Act, clearly falls within the definition of 'public servant'.
                                                                                        .
        On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent\
  accused, who supports the impugned_judgment of High Court by placing
  reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat
  and Anrs. v. Patel Ramjibhai Danabhai and Ors etc. elc., [1979) 3 SCC 347
G and Maharashtra State Board of SecondaiJ' and Higher SecondGJ)' Educa1ion
  & Anrs. etc., etc. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors., [ 1984) 4 SCC 27
  contends that on comparative reading of Sub-clauses (iii) & (ix) of Clause (c)
  of Section 2 of the 1988 Act, the principle of Interpretation 'General/a
  speciallibus non derogant' would apply. There being a special provision in
H Sub-clause (ix) which covers only certain holders of offices of the specified
          GOVT. OF A.P. v. P. VENKU REDDY [DHARMADHIKARI. J.)                  541
    co-operative societies. and does not include other employees of such societies,    A
    the general provision contained in Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (c) of Section 2
J   of the 1988 Act shall have no application. It is argued that the special
    provision in Sub-clause (ix) shall exclude the general provision in Sub-clause
    (iii).

           After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, our            B
    conclusion is \hat the High Court is clearly in error in relying on Sub-clause
    (ix) and overlooking Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (c) of section 2 of the 1988 Act
    for quashing the proceeding on the ground that the respondent/accused is
    not covered by the definition of 'public servant'.

           From the above quoted Sub-clause (ix) of Clause (c) of section 2 of the     C
    1988 Act, it is evident that in the expansive definition of 'public servant',
    elected office-bearers with President and Secretary of a registered co-operative
    society which is engaged in trade amongst others in 'baking' and 'receiving
    or having received any financial aid' from the Central or State Government,
    are included although such elected office-bearers are not servants in              D
    employment of the co-operative societies. But employees or servants of a co-
    operative society which is controlled or aided by the government, are covered
    by Sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of Section 2 of the 1988 Act. Merely because
    such employees of co-operative societies are not covered by Sub-clause (ix)
    along with holders of elective offices, High court ought not to have overlooked
    that the respondent, who is admittedly an employee of a co-operative bank          E
    which is controlled and aided by the government, is covered within the
    comprehensive definition of 'public servant' as contained in Sub-clause (iii)
    of clause (c) of Section 2 of the 1988 Act. It is not disputed that the
    respondentlaccused is in service of a co-operative Central Bank which is an
    'authority or body' controlled and aided by the government.                        F
           It cannot be lost sight of that the 1988 Act, as its predecessor that is
    the repealed Act of 1947 on the same subject, was brought into force with
    avowed purpose of effective prevention of bribery and corruption. The Act
    of 1988 which repeals and replaces the Act of 1947 contains a very wide
    definition of 'public servant' in Clause. (c) of section 2 of the 1988 Act. The    G
    Statement of objects and Reasons contained in the Bill by which the Act was
    introduced in the Legislature throws ·light on the intention of the legislature
    in providing a very comprehensive definition of .word 'public servant'.
    Paragraph 3 of the statement of Objects and reasons reads:.

            "The bill. inter-alia, envisages \\'idening the scope of the definition H
    542                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A           of the expression 'public servant', incorporation of offences under
            sections 161 to 165A of the Indian Penal .Code, enhancement of
            penalties provided for these offences and incorporation of a provision
            that the order of ~he trial court upholding the grant of sanction for
            prosecution would be final if it has not already been challenged and
            the trial has commenced. In order to expedite the proceedings,
B           provisions for day-to-day trial of cases and prohibitory provisions
            with regard to grant of stay and exercise of powers of revision on
            interlocutory orders .have been included.

          Clause 2 of the Notes on Clauses in Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part-
C   II, Sec. 2, further clarifies the legislative intent thus:

            "Clause 2. This clause defines the expressions used in the Bill. Clause
            2(c) defines "public servant". In the existing definition the emphasis
            is on the authority employing and the authority remunerating. In the
            proposed definition the emphasis is on public duty. The definition of
D           "election" is based on the definition of this expression in the Indian
            Penal Code."

           Under the repealed Act of I 947 as provided in Section 2 of the 1988 Act,
    the definition of 'public servant' was restricted to 'public servants' as defined
    in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to curb effectively bribery
E   and corruption not only in government establishments and departments but
    also in other semi-governmental authorities and bodies and their departments
    where the employees are entrusted with public duty, a comprehensive definition
    of'public servants' has been given in Clause (c) of Section 2 of the 1988 Act.

          In construing definition.of 'public servant' in Clause (c) of Section 2
F of the 1988 Act, the court is required to adopt a purposive approach as would
  give effect to the intention of legislature. Jn that view Statement of Objects
  and Reasons contained in the Bill leading to the passing of the Act can be
  taken of assistance of. It gives the background in which the legislation was
  enacted. The present Act, with much wider definition of 'public servant', was
G brought in force to purify public administration. When the legislature has
  used such comprehensive definition of 'public servant' to achieve the purpose
  of punishing and crubing growing corruption in government and semi-
  government departments, it would be appropriate not to limit the contents of
  definition clause by construction which would be against the spirit of the
  statute. The definition of 'public servant', therefore, deserves a wide
H construction. see : State of Madhya Pradesh v . Shri Ram Singh. AIR (2000)
      GOVT. OF A.P. v. P. VENKU REDDY [DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 543

SC873.                                                                           A
      As a matter of fact, we find that the point arising before us on the
definition of 'public servant' that it does include employee of a banking co-
operative society which is 'controlled or aided by ihe government' is clearly
covered against the respondent/accused by the judgment in the case of State
of Maharashtra & Anrs. v. Prabhakarrao and Anr., JT (2002) Suppl. 1 SC 5.        B
      The other decision relied on behalf of the respondent in the case of
State of Maharashtra v. laljit Rajshi Shah and Ors., [2000] 2 SCC 699 is
distinguishable as it was based on interpretation of the definition of 'public
servant' as was contained in the repealed Act of 194 7 which restricted it to    C
cover only such 'public servants' as are included in Section 21 of Indian
Penal Code.

      The appeals, therefore, succeed and are allowed. The impugned order
of the High Court dated 26.9.2001 is hereby set aside. The trial court is
directed to proceed with the trial of the case against the respondent with law. D

RP.                                                         Appeals allowed.