Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Prashant Vinayakrao Sable, was employed as a Recovery Officer with M/s. Yash Consultancy Services, a private recovery agency engaged by Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda). The complainant, Subhash Kashinath Rane, had taken a vehicle loan from Dena Bank in 2010-11 and defaulted. On 8.1.2021, the applicant visited the complainant's house, claimed to be a Recovery Officer of the bank, and demanded Rs. 20,000 to not seize the tractor. The complainant paid Rs. 10,000 on the spot and agreed to pay the balance later. On 12.1.2021, the complainant lodged a complaint with CBI, ACB, Pune, leading to FIR No. RC PUNE/2021/A/0001 dated 18.1.2021 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A trap was laid on 19.1.2021, and the applicant was caught red-handed accepting bribe. He was arrested and later granted bail. The applicant filed a criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR and charge sheet. The core legal issue was whether the applicant, being an employee of a private recovery agency, could be considered a 'public servant' under Section 2(c) of the PC Act. The applicant argued that he was not a public servant as he was not in the service or pay of the government or a corporation established by law. The respondent (Union of India) contended that the applicant was acting as a recovery officer for a nationalized bank and thus fell within the definition. The court analyzed Section 2(c) of the PC Act, which defines 'public servant' to include employees of corporations established by or under a Central or State Act. The court noted that Dena Bank is a nationalized bank under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, and thus a corporation. However, the applicant was not an employee of the bank but of a private agency. The court held that the definition does not extend to employees of private agencies merely because they perform work for a public sector bank. The court quashed the FIR and charge sheet, holding that the applicant was not a public servant and the prosecution under Section 7 of the PC Act was not maintainable. The court emphasized that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act - Public Servant Definition - Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The applicant, an employee of a private recovery agency (Yash Consultancy Services), was not a public servant under Section 2(c) of the PC Act as he was not in the service or pay of the government or a corporation established by or under a Central or State Act. The court held that the definition of 'public servant' under the PC Act does not include employees of private agencies merely because they perform recovery work for a nationalized bank. (Paras 5-7) B) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Abuse of Process - FIR No. RC PUNE/2021/A/0001 dated 18.1.2021 and charge sheet in Special Case No. 51 of 2020 quashed as the applicant was not a public servant, making the prosecution under Section 7 of PC Act unsustainable. The court held that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee of a private recovery agency, acting as a recovery officer for a bank, can be considered a 'public servant' under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and consequently prosecuted under Section 7 of the said Act.
Final Decision
The court allowed the criminal application and quashed FIR No. RC PUNE/2021/A/0001 dated 18.1.2021 and the charge sheet in Special Case No. 51 of 2020.
Law Points
- Public servant definition under Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Section 2(c)
- Section 7
- Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Quashing of FIR
- Employee of private agency not a public servant
