ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J.
1. This revision by the State is directed against the order dated 16th May, 1989 of a Special Judge, Delhi, dropping the criminal proceedings against respondent-accused.
2. Indisputably, chargesheet by the Anti Corruption Branch of Delhi for the offences under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was filed alleging that the respondent on 26th December, 1987 while posted as Manager, New Bank of India, Rana Pratap Bagh obtained Rs.21,000/- from Kamaljit Singh, complainant, as illegal gratification for handing over the loan-bank-draft of Rs. 21,000/- and, therefore, he being a public servant was guilty for the said criminal offences. Impugned order was passed at the stage the case came up for consideration of framing of charge against the respondent.
3. Relying on the decision in Union of India and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Mitra, , the submission advanced by Ms. Mukta Gupta for the State was that New Bank of India with whom the respondent was employed on
26th December, 1987 was a ‘Corporation’ within the meaning of clause 12(b) of Section 21 IPC of Section 21 IPC and he was thus a ‘public servant’ within the meaning of said Section 21. Impugned order dropping the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the New Bank of India was neither a ‘Corporation’ within the meaning of said clause 12(b) of Section 21 nor the respondent was a ‘public servant’ within the meaning of Section 21 is, therefore, legally erroneous. In Ashok Mitra’s case (supra) while dealing with similar issue it was held in paras 8 to 10 thus:-
“8. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank, ,
Specifically considered the question whether a nationalised bank is a ‘corporation’ or a ‘body corporate’ and held:
“Keeping in view the provisions of the Banks Nationalisation Act we are of the opinion that the nationalised bank is a corporation established by a Central Act and it is owned and controlled by the Central Government (Emphasis ours).
The Constitution Bench expressly over-ruled the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the Oriental Bank of Commerce case (1982 Crl. L.J. 2230 ) and held that the distinction drawn in that judgment between a ‘body corporate’ and ‘corporation’ in relation to a nationalised bank is erroneous and that the view that a nationalised bank is not a corporation could not be sustained. Thus, it now rests settled that a nationalised bank is a corporation which is established by a Central Act and is owned and controlled by the Central Government. Are the employees of Corporations which are owned and controlled by the Central Government and are established by a Central Act, ‘public servant’s’?
9. In State Vs. O.P. Dogra , , while setting aside the judgment of the High Court of J & K, which had held that the employees of an Insurance Company were not ‘public servants’ within the meaning of Section 21 RPC (corresponding to section 21
IPC ), this Court opined :-
“So far as the Life Insurance Corporation is concerned there can be no second view that the employees of the Corporation come within the definition of the term ‘public servant’ as given under Section 21 of RPC. So far as the other respondents are concerned, admittedly Jupiter Insurance Co. has been merged with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. after nationlisation and the latter is now a part of the Corporation, namely, General Insurance Corporation of India. By such process, the respondents Dogra and his associates are in the same position as Anand Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned counsel appearing for Dogra and his associates has stated before us that the finding of the High Court on this score is not tenable and the respondents must be held to be public servants.”
Section 21 IPC Provides :
“21. “Public Servant” – The words “Public Servant” denote a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following namely :
Twelfth – Every person –
(a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the perormance of any public duty by the Government.
(b) In the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.”
10. On a plain reading of the above provision, it follows that the view of the Calcutta High Court in the impugned judgment holding that the Branch Manager of Bank of India is not a ‘public servant’ under Section 21 of IPC is erroneous and cannot be sustained.”
4. Present case is squarly covered by the said decision and the view taken by the Special Judge that the New Bank of India was neither a ‘Corporation’ under clause 12(b) of Section 21 IPC nor the respondent was a public servant within the meaning of said Section 21 IPC thus cannot be legally sustained. Decision in S. S. Dhanoa Vs. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and others, relied upon by Sh. K.B. Andley appearing for the respondent has no applicability to the facts of this case inasmuch as in that case the question which arose for determination was as to whether the appellant who was member of Indian Administrative Service and whose services were placed at the disposal of the cooperative stores Ltd., a society registered under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 was a public servant within the meaning of clause 12 of Section 21 IPC for the purposes of Section 197 Cr. P.C. The order under challenge deserves to
be set aside.
5. Consequently, the revision is accepted and the order dated 16th May, 1989 is set aside. Concerned Special Judge will now proceed to frame the charge(s) against the respondent and decide the case in accordance with law within a period of six months as it pertains to an incident which had taken place more than 11 years ago.
6. Respondent is directed to appear before the said Court on 7th October, 1999 for directions.