H.H. Kantharia J.
1. The neat question of law that arises for consideration in this group of criminal revision applications is, whether employees of nationalised banks are 'public servants' within the meaning of clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts giving rise to these revision applications are as under :
In special Cases Nos. 44 and 50 of 1978, accused No. 1, l. d. Kanchan, who was working as branch manager of the Indian Overseas Bank, Byculla branch, Bombay, was prosecuted in the Court of the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, Bombay, along with others, by the Central Bureau of Investigation, on the allegations that in the months of April to July, 1977, he entered into a criminal conspiracy with others for committing offences of cheating the Indian Overseas Bank by allowing the other accused persons to open bank accounts in the names of fictitious firms and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, forged promissory notes and bogus purchase bills and allowed them to obtain large amounts of loans on the strength of the said forged documents. He and others, therefore, were charged for offences punishable under section 120B, 465, 467, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and further be being a 'public servant' for committing an offence of criminal misconduct, punishable under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. At the hearing, the made an application before the special judge that he was not a 'public servant' and hence an offence under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not applicable to him. The learned special judge heard arguments on this point and by his order dated August 14, 1987, held that an employee of a nationalised bank cannot be regarded as a 'public servant' within the meaning of clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. For coming to such a conclusion, the special judge relied upon a judgment of this court (S. M. Daud J.) in N. Vaghul v. State of Maharashtra [1987] Crl LJ 385. He, accordingly, discharged all the accused persons. It appears that many identical matters were pending hearing and final disposal in the court of the special judge and in accordance with his view, as above, he discharged all the accused persons in all those cases also.
3. Being aggrieved, the Central Bureau of Investigation, through the State of Maharashtra, filed these revision applications.
4. At the outset, let me dispose of a contention raised on behalf on the respondents that the judgment of this court in N. Vaghul's case [1987] Crl LJ 385 has finally decided the point and I do not have to go further into that question. In other words, the submission of learned counsel of the respondents is that Mr. Justice Daud's judgment on the point is final and it is not for me to reopen and reconsider the issue. This is the submission of all learned counsel representing the respondents except Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani who appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 in criminal revision application No. 1 of 1988. He submitted that the observations made by Mr. Justice Daud were in the nature of obiter only and, therefore, the question whether or not an employee of a nationalised bank is a 'public servant' within the meaning of section 21(12)(b) of the Indian Penal Code is very much open for a decision by this court.
5. Now, speaking with respect to Mr. Justice Daud, I am of the same opinion as expressed by Mr. Jethmalani that Mr. Justice Daud has not decided the crucial point finally. His observations in this respect merely obiter. Thus, at the end of paragraph 20 of his judgment Mr. Justice Daud observed :
'A very interesting and erudite argument has been advanced by counsel on both the sides. In view of my finding on the first point, it is not really necessary to give a considered finding on the tenability or otherwise of the special defence raised on behalf of accused Nos. 1 and 2. (emphasis (Here printed in italics) supplied). But it is necessary that I take not of some of the submission made by counsel.'
6. Then, dealing with the point further, he observed in para 21 of his judgment as under :
'Section 46A, Banking Regulation Act, 1949, lays down that a chairman, director, manager and other employees of banking company shall be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of Chapter IX, Indian Penal Code.' In the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act of 1970, section 14 prescribes that every custodian of a corresponding new bank, viz., a nationalised bank, shall be deemed to be a public servant, i.e., for the purpose of Chapter IX, Indian Penal Code, Act No. 45 of 1860 section 14 repeats the deeming being restricted to Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code. The reply given on behalf of accused Nos. 1 and 2 to the very arresting reply of the complainant is that the same was introduced by way of abundant caution. It did not exclude the operation of clause (12) of section 21, Indian Penal Code. That bank employees are public servants for the purposes of section 21, clause (12)(b), Indian Penal Code, is the ratio of the decision in S. C. Agrawal V. State of U. P. [1979] AII LJ 922 : Kurian V. State of Kerala and Kundan Lal Sharma V. State of Punjab . None of these decisions refers to section 46A, Banking Regulation Act of 1949 or section 14 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 or 1980. To my mind, where the banking statutes show a limitation, it will not be permissible to overcome these limits by recourse to the the general words used in clause (12)(b) of section 21, Indian Penal Code. If the Legislature wanted certain specific bank employees to be considered 'public servants' for a limited purpose, the contrary cannot be held by taking recourse to the wide sweep of section 21, Indian Penal Code.'
7. Mr. Bobde, the learned advocate-general, appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, submits that reading the definition of 'public servant' as provided in section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act together with the one in clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code along with other provisions of the various enactments concerning banking business, it is crystal clear that an employee of a nationalised bank is a 'public servant' within the meaning of section 21(12)(b) of the Indian Penal Code. His submission is controverted by all learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and it is their case that an employee of a nationalised bank cannot be said to be in the service of a 'corporation' established by or under a Central Act or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, and as such he cannot be termed as a 'public servant' as defined by section 21(12)(b) of the Indian Penal Code although he can be well said to be a 'public servant' for the purpose of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Now, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. M. V. Narasimhan : 1975CriLJ1639 , it was observed by the Supreme Court that the Prevention of Corruption Act, being a social legislation, its provisions must be liberally construed so as to advance the object of the Act and that can only be done if an extended meaning is given to the term 'public servant' as referred to in section 2 of the Act by applying the enlarged definition contained in clause (12) inserted in the Penal Code by the two amendments referred to in the Criminal Amendment Acts of 1958 and 1964. In the light of these observations of the Supreme Court, let us proceed to analyse the various provisions of law in order to find out whether an employee of a nationalised bank is a 'public servant' or not within the meaning of section 21(12)(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
9. Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, provides that for the purposes of the said Act, 'public servant' means a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offences by or relating to public servants. Section 161 therein is a penal provision for punishing a public servant who indulges in taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Therefore, if a 'public servant' is intended to be prosecuted and punished under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code for indulging in an act of corruption, one has to resort to the provisions of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code in order to ascertain whether or not the said person is a 'public servant', for, section 21 of the Indian Penal Code defines a public servant. Therefore, we are here concerned with the definition of 'public servant' as provided in clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under :
'Every person- (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. Section 46A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, provides that :
'Every chairman, director, auditor, liquidator, manager and any other employee of a banking company shall be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code.'
11. This provision was inserted in the statute book by the Banking Companies (Amendment) Act, 1956, on January 14, 1957. Thereafter, section 51 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, was amended with effect from July 19, 1969, as under ;
'Without prejudice to the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, or any other enactment, the provisions of sections 10, 13 to 15, 17, 19 to 21, 23 to 28, 29 (excluding sub-section (3)), 31, 34, 35, 35A, 36 (excluding clause (d) of sub-section (1)), 46 to 48, 50 52 and 53 shall also apply, so far as may be, to and in relation to the State Bank of India or any corresponding new bank constituted under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 (emphasis* supplied), or a regional rural bank established under section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, or any other banking institution notified by the Central Government in this behalf as they apply to and in relation to banking companies.' In other words, the provisions of section 46A of the Banking Regulation Act are to be read in section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, in so far as they relate to a corresponding new bank scheduled therein. Section 14 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer Undertakings) Act, 1970, provides that every custodian of a corresponding new bank shall be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code. A similar provision is to be found in section 14 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) 1980, by which some more banks were nationalised as per Schedule 1 therein. Therefore, a harmonious reading of section 46A and 51 of the Banking Regulation Act together with section 14 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Acts of 1970 and 1980 clearly shows that an employee of a nationalised bank is a 'public servant' within the meaning of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code for which definition, as stated above, one has to resort to section 21(12)(b) of the Indian Penal Code. Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides that 'public servant' in the said Act means a 'public servant' as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is obvious that one who is a 'public servant' for the purpose of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code is also a 'public servant' within the meaning of section 21(12)(b) of the Indian Penal Code in so far as it relates to the definition of a 'public servant' under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Any other interpretation of the word 'public servant'., giving two different meaning, one under the Indian Penal Code and the other under the Prevention of Corruption Act, would lead to absurdity. It is difficult to accept a proposition that one who indulges in the misconduct of taking bribe can be punished under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code if he is an employee of a nationalised bank and at the same time cannot be dealt with under section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which provides that if a 'public servant', by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage he shall be punished under section 5(2) of the said Act. If the argument of learned counsel appearing for the respondents that an employee of a nationalised bank is a 'public servant' within the meaning of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code but not within the meaning of section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is to be accepted, it would lead to ridiculous results in the sense that in that case a bank employee who indulges in an act of corruption can be well punished under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code but not under section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That could never have been the intention of the Legislature while enacting the special Act, viz., the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
It is also urged on behalf of the respondents that a nationalised bank is neither a 'corporation' nor a 'Government company' under section 617 of the Companies Act, and therefore, their employees cannot be regarded as 'public servants' within the meaning of clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of this contention, they relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Delhi Development Authority . I am unable to persuade myself to agree with this contention raised on behalf of the respondents. Now, as per section 5(d) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, 'company' means any company defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, which means a company formed and registered under the Companies Act. It is no doubt true that none of the nationalised banks is registered under the Companies Act, 1956, but the definition of 'Government company' under section 617 provides that : 'For the purposes of this Act, Government company means any company in which not less than fifty-one per cent. of the paid- up share capital is held by the Central Government, or by any State Government or Government, or partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more State Governments and includes a company which is a subsidiary of a Government company as thus defined.'
12. Sub-section (1), (3) and (4) of section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and 1980, provides that :
'(1) On the commencement of this Act, there shall be constituted such corresponding new banks as are specified in the First Schedule.'
(3) The entire capital of each corresponding new bank shall stand vested in, and allotted to, the Central Government.
(4) Every corresponding new bank shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of this Act, to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and to contract and may sue be sued in its name.'
13. A harmonious reading of these provisions of law makes it clear that a nationalised bank is not only a 'body corporate' (which word is interchangeable with the word 'Corporation') established under a Central Act but also a 'Government company' within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act and the employees of such a bank are 'public servants' within the meaning of clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. This question had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Kurian v. State of Kerala , wherein it was ruled :
'After the passing of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Bank of INdia became a bank of which the entire share capital is vested in the Central Government and thus it satisfies the definition of `Government company' in section 617 of the Companies Act. It is also a body corporate established under a Central Act. MOreover, a nationalised bank come under `other authorities' in the definition of `State ' in article 12 of the Constitution. This also indicates that an employee of a nationalised bank is a public servant.'
14. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Kerala HIg Court. It may be noted here that this judgment was considered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Delhi Development Authority and the learned judges of the Delhi High Court did not agree with the view taken by the Kerala High Court and held that a nationalised bank is neither a 'corporation' nor a 'Government company' under section 617 of the Companies Act and their employees could not be said to be public servants within the meaning of clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code with which view, speaking with respect, I am unable to agree. Apart from the Kerala High Court, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in S. C. Agrawal v. State of U. P. [1979] All LJ 922 and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kundanlal Sharma v. State of Punjab also held that an employee of a nationalised bank is a 'public servant' within the meaning of clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code which view, in my opinion, speaking with respect is the correct view of the matter.
15. In the result, I hold that employees of nationalised banks are 'public servants' within the meaning of clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. All the criminal revision applications, therefore, succeed and the same are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay, Bombay, discharging the accused persons on the ground that an employee of a nationalised bank is not a 'public servant' within the meaning of clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are quashed and set aside. Rule in each of the criminal revision application is, accordingly, made absolute.