Prem Nath, Field Officer, Land Mortgage Bank, Rampure vs State of Punjab .

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

The significant question raised in this petition under section 482 of the Code or Criminal Procedure is whether an officer of a Cooperative Bank is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The question arises in the following facts and circumstances : One Pargat Singh had taken a loan from the Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank, Rampura. He committed default in the repayment of the loan. He happened to meet the petitioner, Prem Nath, who is a field officer in the said Bank. The petitioner told Pargat Singh that he was a defaulter and if he was paid Rs. 1000/ he would so manage that Pargat Singh is not bothered for one year. Ultimately, the amount settled was Rs. 800/. Pargat Singh informed the police. A raid was conducted in which the incriminating currency notes were recovered from Prem Nath and first information report was lodged against him under section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the first information report on the ground that he is not covered under the definition of public servant with the result that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are not attracted and continuance of proceedings against him is an abuse of the process of Court.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the relevant clause in the context of the Cooperative Societies is subclause (ix) of clause (c) of Section 2. The said subclause makes any person who is the President, Secretary or other officebearer of a registered Cooperative Society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, a public servant for purposes of the Act. The contention is that undoubtedly the petitioner who is a Field Officer of the Bank does not fall in any of the above categories.

I have examined the question in the light of the submission of the learned counsel and provisions of the Act. In the return, it was stated that in fact the name of the Bank was Rampura Primary Agriculture Development Bank. This name came into being as a result of the Punjab Cooperative Land Mortgage Banks (Amendment) Act, 1986. Be that as it may, by whatever name called, there is no dispute that the Bank is, in fact, a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. According to section 30 of the said Act, Cooperative Societies are bodies corporate. In Daman Singh and others etc, v. State of Punjab and others, etc., AIR 1985 Supreme Court 973 it was held that the Cooperative Societies registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, are `corporations''. Once it is found that the petitioner is an employee of a Corporation, he is clearly covered under subclause (iii) of clauses (c) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The subclause (iii) relates to a person in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a Central. Provincial or State Act etc. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that an employee of a Cooperative Bank is covered under the definition of the term public servant occurring in clause (c) of S. 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial Court on 2031991 for further proceedings according to law.