Cognizance was taken but before charges were framed, the respondent moved a petition for his discharge before the Special Judge stating that he is number a public servant and therefore cannot be tried by the Special Court.
v. Delhi Development Authority, reported in 1982 Crl.
The respondent thereupon filed a criminal revision in the Calcutta High Court seeking quashing of the prosecution launched against him on the ground a delay in the disposal of the case and b that number being a public servant, he companyld number be tried by a Special Court.
The learned Special judge by his order dated 28.6.91 rejected the application.
1995 2 SCR 369 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.
The High Court relied upon the judgment in Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors.
So far as the second ground is companycerned, the High Court agreed with the submission made on behalf of the respondent and held that the respondent companyld number be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of IPC and as such companyld number be fried by the Special Court.
The respondent was the Branch Manager of Bank of India at the relevant time.
The Union of India is aggrieved and has companye up in appeal by special leave.
Law Journal 2230 in support of its finding.
After companypletion of investigation by the CBI, charge sheet was filed in the Court of the Special Judge at Alipur, Calcutta on 4.12.85.
A.S. ANAND, J. Leave granted.
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 Act, 1947.
The only question that we are called upon to companysider 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 companyrts.
The prosecution was accordingly quashed.
The question arises in the following circumstances.
