AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.G. Shankar, J.—State filed this revision impugning the order dated 07.06.2002 of the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB
Cases, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P. No. 399 of 2000 in C.C. No. 6 of 2000. The Respondents 1 to 3 were A.1 to A.3 before the Special Judge in
C.C. No. 6 of 2000. They are the i) Secretary, Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, ii) Supervisor, District Cooperative Central
Bank Limited and iii) Junior Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited. The accused allegedly committed the offence punishable u/s 2(c)
(ix) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (''P.C. Act'', for short). Holding that the employees of cooperative societies constituted under the
Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 are not public servants within the meaning of the P.C. Act, the learned trial Judge discharged A.1 to A.3. The
co-accused, who is A.4, also was discharged. However, the present revision is confined to A.1 to A.3 only.
It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for A.C.B. (Petitioner) that the members of the cooperative societies are, indeed, public
servants, as observed by the Supreme Court in Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc. etc. v. P. Venku Reddy 2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 750 (SC)
and that the trial Court, therefore, was not justified in discharging A.1 to A.3 on the ground that P.C. Act would not apply to them. On the other
hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents/accused contended that the trial Court discharged the accused on the basis of the judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in P. Venku Reddy v. Govt. of A.P. Writ Appeal No. 1163 of 2001, dated 26.09.2001 and that there was no error
on the face of the order of the learned trial Judge to interfere with the same.
There appears to be a change of legal view regarding the definition of public servant, as referred to in the P.C. Act, with reference to its
application to the members of the cooperative societies. As already pointed out, a Division Bench of this Court took the view on 26.09.2001 in P.
Venku Reddy (W.A. No. 1163 of 2001) that an employee of the cooperative society per se is not a public servant within the meaning of Section
2(c)(ix) of the P.C. Act. The impugned order was passed by the learned Special Judge on 07.06.2002. In the appeal from the decision of the High
Court, the Supreme Court in P. Venku Reddy (supra) that the employees of cooperative societies are indeed public servants. In other words, the
Respondents/A.1 to A.3 is public servants within the meaning of the P.C. Act, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court. The question is
whether the order of the learned Special Judge is liable to be set aside, as suffering from error of the application of law.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents-accused referred to three dates. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of Writ Appeal No.
1163 of 2001 on 26.09.2001. The learned Special Judge disposed of Crl.M.P. No. 399 of 2001 on 07.06.2002. The Crl. Appeal No. 997 of
2002 arising from W.A. No. 1163 of 2001 was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 03.09.2002. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for
the Petitioner that the learned Special Judge applied the legal position as it stood on the date of the order and that the legal position as on that date
was that the employees of the cooperative societies were not public servants within the meaning of the P.C. Act. My attention was drawn to
Chapter-XXX of Code of Criminal Procedure. and Section 399 Code of Criminal Procedure. in particular. The Learned Counsel for the accused
submitted that the High Court can interfere with the order of the Special Judge if the order suffers from illegality, irregularity or error in any
proceedings and that as the law stood on the date of the order was followed by the learned Special Judge, the impugned order did not suffer from
any irregularity or illegality or error. It, therefore, is suggested that it is not a case where the High Court can interfere with by exercising its
revisional powers.
I may make it clear that there is no change of law by the enactment. No new provision was incorporated in between 26.09.2001 and
03.09.2002. A Division Bench of this Court took the view on 26.09.2001 that the employees of cooperative societies were not public servants
within the meaning of the P.C. Act. In the criminal appeal arising there from, the Supreme Court held on 03.09.2002 that the members of the
cooperative societies are, indeed, public servants. The question of the wrong application of the law by the trial Court or committing any irregularity
or illegality by the trial Court in passing the impugned order did not arise. However, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the order of
discharge passed by the learned Special Judge has become erroneous.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents-accused inter alia contended that the judgments of the Courts are prospective in operation. I am
afraid that this contention is not correct. Any judgment of the Court and particularly, any judgment of a Court of records are retrospective in
operation. Way back in 1967, Subba Rao C.J. observed in I.C. Golak Nath and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, that it is only the
Supreme Court, which has powers to prospectively overrule an enactment or a legal position. The decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by
the learned Standing Counsel is liable to be read with retrospective operation. However, in the present case, reading the decision of the Supreme
Court with retrospective operation is not necessary. The Supreme Court merely clarified that the employees of cooperative societies are public
servants within the meaning of P.C. Act. The Supreme Court did not lay down any new law. It did not even expand the meaning of public servant.
It merely gave clarity to the grey area pointing out that the employees of cooperative societies are public servants. The question of the decision of
the Supreme Court being prospective or retrospective would be a mere academic exercise in the present case. As on today, the position is that the
employees of cooperative societies are public servants within the meaning of the P.C. Act. In that view of the matter, the decision of the learned
Special Judge is erroneous. The question still open for consideration is whether the order of the learned Special Judge is liable to be set aside.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents-accused contended that whenever the Supreme Court takes a different view, if it is to be applied to
already dispose of cases, it would be impossible to reopen every case on the strength of the clarification issued by the Supreme Court. I am afraid
that equities have no place in criminal law. In the present case, the question is very simple viz., whether A.1 to A.3 are public servants or otherwise
within the meaning of the P.C. Act. The Special Court held that they were not public servants and consequently, discharged them. The Supreme
Court, on the other hand, considered that the employees of cooperative societies are public servants within the meaning of the P.C. Act. The
decision of the learned Special Judge, consequently, suffers from erroneous application of law and is consequently liable to be set aside. It may be
pointed out that the only ground on which the learned trial Judge discharged the accused was that the accused were employees of the cooperative
societies and were not public servants within the meaning of the P.C. Act. Consequently, the order of the Special Court is liable to be set aside.
I, however, do not wish to pass orders straightaway issuing direction to the learned Additional Special Judge SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. I
consider that the ends of justice would be met if the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration.
For the reasons set out, Crl.M.P. No. 399 of 2000 in C.C. No. 6 of 2000 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,
Hyderabad is set aside. The case is remitted to the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad for fresh consideration and
disposal, according to law, after due notice to both sides. The revision is disposed of accordingly.