Co-op society staff public servants, answerable under PC Act, says HC
CHENNAI: Persons working in cooperative societies would come within the ambit of ‘’public servant’’ performing “public duty” and could hence be tried under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, for seeking and receiving bribe, held a full bench of the Madras High Court while answering a reference made to it as to whether the secretary of a cooperative society was a public servant as per the Act.
The full bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy and Justice M Sathyanarayanan set aside the petitioner’s contention that he was not a public servant based on an earlier division bench order that had held that because cooperative societies are not directly funded by the State or Centre, the staff would not come within the ambit of the PC Act.
Penning the judgement, Justice M Sathyanarayanan said to meet the purpose of the Act, the definition of public servant should be given an expanded meaning to root out corruption. “Moreover, the definitions of ‘public duty’ and
‘public servant’ are inclusive and not exclusive,” the court said.
The court noted that the petitioner, the secretary of a society, demanded and accepted bribe to return pledged jewels despite the fact that the loan availed by the person was waived by the State government. “The discharge of such duty, therefore, must be seen as public duty within the meaning of the relevant expression.”
The petitioner has to be regarded as a public servant within the meaning of Sections 2 (c) (viii) and 2 (c) (ix) of the PC Act, and his dealing with the loanee must be seen to be in course of the public duty that he was required to discharge in his official capacity as secretary of the cooperative society, the court said. The court also held that the three conditions required to reckon as a public servant, namely the person’s status in the registered cooperative society, the nature of its business and whether it was in receipt of any funds from either the State or Centre have been satisfied in the present case. The petitioner was secretary of a cooperative society engaged in agriculture, which received financial aid from the government. Based on this, the bench directed the registry to place the case before the roster bench for final disposal.