STATE OF PUNJAB versus KARNAIL SINGH

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 800 · Decided: 22-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 800 
A 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
KARNAIL SINGH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1505 of 2008) 
8 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7 and 13(2) -
Framing of charges against Respondent-Manager of Punjab 
c Agricultural Development Bank under the PC Act - Quashing 
of, by High Court holding that Respondent did not fall within 
the definition of "public servant" - Held: High Court did not 
analyse the factual position and also did not consider rel-
evance of the provisions of Punjab Act of 1957, which Appel-
D /ant adverted to, to contend that Respondent was a public ser-
r· 
vant - Consequently, matter remitted to High Court for fresh 
consideration - Punjab Cooperative Agricultural Development 
Banks Act, 1957 - ss.2(d), (f), (g) and 10. 
Respondent was Manager in the Punjab Agricultural 
E Development Bank. The Trial Court framed charges 
against him for offences punishable under ss.7 and 13(2) 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Respondent 
challenged the judgment by filing criminal revision peti-
lion. High Court held that Respondent did not fall within 
.. 
F the definition of "public servant" and allowed the petition 
thereby settint! aside the judgment of the Trial Court. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court for fresh consideration, the Court 
G 
HELD: The High Court has not analysed the factual 
position. It is also not known whether the details asked 
by the High Court like the total share capital of the Bank 
and as to whether it falls within the definition of Govern-
H 
800 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. KARNAIL SINGH 
801 
ment Company were supplied or not. The effect of the af-
A 
fidavit filed by the Managing Director, Punjab State Co-
operative Agricultural Development Bank also was not 
considered. Appellant has referred to the provisions of 
the Punjab Cooperative Agricultural Development__Ba11ks 
Act, 1957 and various provisions thereof e.g. Section 2(d), B · 
2(f), 2(g) and Section 10 to contend that revision petitioner 
was a public servant. The High Court was required to 
consider the relevance of the aforesaid provisions and 
other provisions of the said Punjab Act of 1957. [Para 6] 
[803-A-C] 
CRIMlNALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1505 of 2008 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 20/7/';.006 of 
the High Court of Punjao and Haryana at Chandigarh iri Crl. 
c 
·... 
Revision No. 1320 of 2004 
. D 
.. 
K.K. Khurana, A.A.G., A.K. Mehta and Kuldip Singh for the 
Appellant. 
Gagan Gupta. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
) 
. 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned 
Single Judge of the Punjab ahd Haryana High Court allowing 
E 
the Criminal revision petition filed by the respondent. 
F" · 
"' 
3. Challenge before the High Court was to the order d.ated 
· 11.5.2004 passed by learned Special Judge, Mansa, framing 
charges against the respondent for offence punishable under 
Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in 
short the 'Act'). The respondent was working as a Manager of G 
Punjab Agricultural Development Bank at Budladha. The stand 
before the High Court was that the writ petitioner was not cov-
ered within the definition' of "public servant" as the Bank was 
only a Co-operative Society and not receiving aid of any kind 
from the Government. An affidavit was~ filed by the Managing H 
."=.:·• 
802 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
A Director, Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development 
Bank Limited to the effect that State Government had invested 
Rs.50 lakhs as share capital in the Bank and Bank is controlled 
by the State Government. It was also argued that the Managing 
Director was an official of the State Government of the desig-
B nation of Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies and, there-
fore, the writ petitioner was a "public servant". The High Court 
wanted to know the total share capital of the Bank and as to 
whether it fall::; within the definition of Government Company as 
defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. After 
c referring to sub-clause (ix) of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act 
the High Court came to an abrupt conclusion that the charges 
had been framed relying on the aforesaid clause, but on the 
facts it cannot be said that the revision petitioner falls within the 
definition of "public

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.