LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAMESHWAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 510 A STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. RAMESHWAR & ORS. ~ (Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 2009) APRIL 6, 2009 1 B [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860/PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: c S.409, 418, 420, 1208/S.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) Cooperative Bank - Alleged illegality in sanctioning loans - Trial Court directing filing of charge sheet - Set aside by High Court on the ground that respondents could not be ' D treated as public servants and hence could not be punishable either under the provisions of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under S.409 /PC - On appeal, Held: High Court erroneously quashed the charges - Its orders set aside and charges framed by the Trial Court restored - Trial Court to E proceed with the trial. WORDS & PHRASES: 'Public Servant' - Meaning of in the context of Prevention F of Corruption Act. The Respondents were Directors of the Indore Premier Co-operative Bank Ltd. and were also Members of the Loan Committee. There was a complaint filed in the Lok Adalat that they had sanctioned loans to some G persons without verifying their eligibility. Charge sheet was filed against the Respondents under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B IPC together with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Trial Court ordered framing of charges. On appeal, High H 510 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. RAMESHWAR & ORS. 511 Court set aside the order of the Trial Court. The High A Court held that the respondents could not be treated as public servants and they could not be punished either under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act or under Section 409 IPC. Disposing of the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1. The High Court did not, while con~idering the definition of the expression "public servant", take into account the fact that the decision in Laljit Rajshi Shah was no longer applicable in view of the amended provisions c of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, defining the said expression. Prima facie, it appears that the Respondent Nos.1 and 3, in their capacity as the Chairman and Executive Officer of the Bank, come within the definition of "public servant" under Section 2(c)(ix) of D the 1988 Act. [Para 37] (525-A-B] State of Maharashtra vs. Laljit Rajshi Shah and others (2000) 2 sec 699, held inapplicable. 2. There is no bar under the M.P. Co-operative E Societies Act, 1960, to take resort to the provisions of the general criminal law, particularly when charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are involved. (Para 38] I [525-F] F Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr. (1989) 1 SCC 715; Om Wati (Smt) & Anr. vs. State, through Delhi Admn. & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 333; Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2001) 9 SCC 631; Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. P. Venku Reddy (2002) 7 SCC G 631; State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Prabhaka"ao & Anr. (2002) 7 SCC 636; Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736 and Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. 2008 (11) SCALE 379, referred to. H 512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. A 3. The High Court had in revision erroneously quashed the charges framed against the respondents. Consequently, the orders dated 17th March, 2007, passed by the High Court in Crl. Revision No.1303 of 2006 and Crl. Revision No.36 of 2007, impugned in these two B appeals are set aside and the charges framed by the Trial • Court against the respondents are restored. [Para 40] [526-A-B] 4. The Trial Court shall proceed with the trial. It is clarified that the views expressed in this judgment are C prima facie in nature for the disposal of these appeals only and should not influence the trial in any way. [Para 40] [526-8-C] Case Law Reference: D (2000) 2 sec 699 distinguished Para 5 (1989) 1 sec 715 referred to Para 14 (2001) 4 sec 333 referred to Para 15 E (2001) 9 sec 631 referred to Para 16 (2002) 1 sec 631 referred to Para 19 (2002) 1 sec 636 referred to Para 19 F (2006) 6 sec 736 referred to Para 24 2008 (11) SCALE 379 referred to Para 25 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 2009. G From the Judgment & Order dated 17.03.2007 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal Revision No. 1303 of 2006. Ravindra Srivastava, C.D. Singh, Sunny Chaudhary, Aditya H ~ ~- STA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.