UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus ASHOK KUMAR MITRA

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 24-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

j 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
ASHOK KUMAR MITRA 
FEBRUARY 24, 1995 
[DR. AS. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.) 
Indian Penal Code, 186()-Section 21-Public Servant-Employees of 
a nationalised Banlc-Whether 'public servants' Held yes. 
A. 
B 
The respondent, Branch Manager of Bank of India, was prosecuted C 
for offences under sections 120-B, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477 A IPC and 
section 5(2) r/ws S(l)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 
Before charges were framed, the respondent moved a petition for his 
discharge before learned Judge of the Special Court stating that he was 
not a 'public servant' and therefore could not be tried by the Special Court. D 
The application was rejected. The respondent filed revision seeking quash-
ing of the prosecution on the ground of delay in ~he disposal of the case 
and also on the ground that not being a 'public servant', he could not be 
tried by a Special Court. The High Court rejected the first ground holding 
that the delay was not attributable solely to the prosecution. It was however 
held that the respondent could not be deemed to be a 'public servant' E 
within the meaning of section 21 of IPC and as such could not be tried by 
the Special Court. The prosecution was accordingly quashed. Hence these 
appeals. 
The appeHant urged that a nationalised bank was a 'Corporation' 
and not a 'body corporate' and therefore, the respondent would be squarely 
covered by the definition of a 'public servant' as per section 21 (Twelfth) 
(b) of the IPC. 
Allowing the appeals, this court 
HELD : 1. A nationalised bank is a corporation which is established 
by a Central Act and is owned and controlled by the Central Government. 
The employees of corporations which are owned and controlled by the 
Central Government and established by a Central Act are 'public 
servants'. (372-C] 
369 
F 
G 
H 
"'-, 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 2 s.c.R. 
A 
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248; Ashoka Marketing 
Ltd. and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. etc., (1990) 4 SCC 406 
(Constitution Bench) and CBI v. O.P. Dogra and Ors., AIR (1986) SC 312: 
relied on. 
2. The respondent had himself 'handsomely contributed' to the delay. 
B One the ground of delay, not attributable only to the prosecution, the 
respondent could not be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and 
take shelter under 'speedy trial' to escape from prosecution. [373-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Criminal Appeal 
C Nos. 311-12 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.03.94 of the Calcutta High 
Court in Crl. R. Nos. 1498 and 1531 of 1991. 
Venugopal Reddy, Naveen Prakash and P. Parmeswaran for the . 
D Appellants. 
I 
Dr. Shankar Ghosh and Amlan Ghosh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
DR. ANAND, J. Leave granted. 
The only question that we are called upon to consider in these 
appeals is whether the employees of a nationalised Bank can be held to be 
'public servants' within the meaning of Section 21 of Indian Penal Code 
and triable by Special Courts for the offences triable by these courts. The 
F question arises in the following circumstances. 
The respondent was the Branch Manager of Bank of India at the 
relevant time. A case was registered against him and another person for 
offences under sections 120 B, 420, 409, 467, 468, and 477A IPC and 
Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption 
G Act, 1947. After completion of investigation by the CBI, charge-sheet was 
filed in the Court of the Special Judge at Alipur,. Calcutta on 4.12.85. 
Cognizance was taken but before charges were framed, the respondent 
moved a petition for his discharge before the Special Judge stating that he 
is not a 'public servant' and therefore cannot be tried by the Special Court. 
H The learned Special judge by his order dated 28.6.91 rejected the applica-
......_ 
'\ 
\ >. 
j 
' \ 
1 
' 
U.0.1. v.AKMITRA[DR.ANAND,J.] 
371 
tion. The respondent thereupon filed a criminal revision in the Calcutta A 
High Court seeking quashing of the prosecution launched against him on 
the ground (a) delay in the disposal of the case and (b) that not being a 
'public servant', he could not be tried by a Special Court. 
The High Court rejected the first ground observing that the respon-
dent himself had 'handsomely contributed' to whatever delay had so far B 
been occasioned and, therefore, the proceedings eould not be quashed on 
the ground of delay, w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.