CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BANK SECURITIES & FRAUD CELL versus RAMESH GELLI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 23-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] l S.C.R. 762 
A 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BANK SECURITIES 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
& FRAUD CELL 
v. 
RAMESH GELL! AND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. I 077-1081 of2013) 
FEBRUARY 23, 2016 
[PRAFULLA C. PANT AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 13(2) read with s. 
J 3(1)(d) - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - s. 46A - Chairman, 
Directors and Officers of GTE-private bank, before its amalgamation 
with the Oriental Bank of Commerce - Whether public servants for 
the purposes of their prosecution in respect of offences punishable 
under the PC Act - Held: Chairman/Managing Director and 
Executive Director of GTE bank are public servants for the purposes 
of PC Act by virtue of s. 46A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 -
Jn view of definition of public servant in s. 46A as amended, the 
Managing Director and Executive Director of a Banking Company 
operating under licence issued by Reserve Bank of India, were 
already public servants, as such they cannot be excluded from 
definition of 'public servant' - Merely because the PC Act repealed 
ss. 161 to 165A !PC, it cannot be said, that the legislature had 
illlention to make s. 46A inapplicable for the purposes of PC Act -
Law which is not shown ultra vires must be given proper meaning -
s. 46A cannot be left meaningless and requires harmonious 
construction - Interpretation of statutes. 
Allowing the appeal filed by CBI and dismissing the writ 
petition filed by accused, the Court 
PER PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 
HELD: 1.1 The object of enactment of Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988, was to make the anti corruption law more 
effective and widen its coverage. In view of definition of public 
servant in Section 46A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as 
amended the Managing Director and Executive Director of :i 
Banking Company operating under licence issued by Reserve 
Bank of India, were already public servants, as such they cannot 
be excluded from definition of 'public servant'. Over the general 
definition of 'public servant' given in Section 21 IPC, it is_ the 
762 
CBI, BANK SECURITIES & FRAUD CELL v. RAMESH GELL! 
definition of 'public servant' given in the P.C. Act read with Section 
46-A of Banking Regulation Act, which holds the field for the 
purposes of offences under the said Act. For banking business 
what cannot be forgotten is Section 46A of Banking Regulation 
Act, 1949 and merely for the reason that Sections 161 to 165A 
IPC have been repealed by the P.C. Act, 1988, relevance of Section 
46A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, is not lost. [Para 24] [779-
B-D] 
1.2 When P.C. Act, 1988 came into force, Section 46 of 
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 was already in place, and since 
the scope of P.C. Act, 1988 was to widen the definition of "public 
servant", as such, merely for the reason that in 1994, while 
clarifying the word "chairman", legislature did not substitute 
words "for the purposes of P.C. Act, 1988" for the expression 
"for the purposes of Chapter IX of the Penal Code in Section 
46A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, it cannot be said, that the 
legislature had intention to make Section 46A inapplicable· for 
the purposes of P.C. Act, 1988, by which Sections 161 to 165A 
IPC were omitted, and the offences stood replaced by Sections 7 
to 12 of P.C. Act, 1988. [Para 25] [779-E-F] 
1.3 A law which is not shown ultra vires must be given 
proper meaning. Section 46-A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, 
cannot be left meaningless and requires harmonious construction. 
As such, the Special Judge (CBI) erred in not taking cognizance 
of offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 
13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988. However, the accused cannot be said 
to be public servant within the meaning of Section 21 IPC, as 
such offence under Section 409 IPC may not get attracted, it is 
left open for the trial court to take cognizance Qf other offences 
punishable under the Penal Code, if the same get attracted. 
Therefore, the courts below erred in law in holding that accused 
who were Chairman/Managing Director and Executive Director 
of GTB respectively, were not public servants for the purposes 
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As such, the orders 
impugned are set aside. [Paras 26, 27] [779-G-H; 780-A-C] 
Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. P Venku Reddy 
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 538: (2002) 7 SCC 631; Federal 
Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas and others 2003 (4) Suppl. 
763 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
764 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUP
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.