Case Note & Summary
The case arose from the registration of a crime by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against the petitioner, V. Krishnareddy, who served as the General Manager of Nandini Milk Products, a unit of the Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Limited (KMF). The petitioner filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash Crime No. 7/2021, which was registered under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the allegation that he possessed disproportionate assets to the extent of 107.70% compared to his known sources of income. The primary ground advanced by the petitioner was that he, as an employee of a cooperative society, did not qualify as a 'public servant' under the Act, and consequently, the ACB lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against him. An interim order of stay was granted by the High Court on 09-03-2022, halting further investigation. The petitioner's senior counsel contended that employees of KMF are not government servants and relied on a Coordinate Bench decision in K.M.F. & District Milk Unions Retired Employees Kshemabhivridhi Vedike v. State of Karnataka. The Special Public Prosecutor, opposing the petition, cited another Coordinate Bench ruling in C. Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka, where a Project Manager of Nirmithi Kendra was held to be a public servant, and argued that the petitioner was similarly placed. The court, after considering the submissions, confined itself to the sole issue of whether the petitioner fell within the definition of 'public servant' under Section 2(c) of the Act. It analyzed the relevant provisions, noting that Section 2(c)(iii) includes any person in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a State Act, or an authority or body owned or controlled or aided by the Government. The court placed reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Venku Reddy, which clarified that employees of cooperative societies that are controlled and aided by the Government are covered under sub-clause (iii), irrespective of whether they hold elective offices. It further referred to a Division Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Narasimha Murthy, which specifically examined the status of KMF and held it to be an authority or body controlled and aided by the State Government, thus bringing its employees within the ambit of 'public servant'. The court observed that KMF receives substantial State aid and that its board is controlled by government nominees. Based on these precedents and the definitional scope, the court concluded that the petitioner, as the General Manager of a unit of KMF, was indeed a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, the ACB had full jurisdiction to register the crime and proceed with the investigation. The petition to quash the FIR was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated.
Headnote
A) Interpretation of Statutes - Definition of 'Public Servant' Under Prevention of Corruption Act - Scope and Applicability - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 2(b), 2(c) - The court examined whether an employee of a cooperative society that is controlled and aided by the State falls within the definition of 'public servant'. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Venku Reddy and a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Narasimha Murthy, it held that such employees are covered under Section 2(c)(iii) as employees of a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government, irrespective of not holding elective office under sub-clause (ix). Held that the definition is expansive and includes employees of government-controlled cooperatives; thus, the petitioner, as General Manager of KMF, is a public servant, and ACB had jurisdiction to register the crime (Paras 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a General Manager of Nandini Milk Products (a unit of KMF), qualifies as a 'public servant' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Anti-Corruption Bureau to register a crime for disproportionate assets.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The petitioner is a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as KMF is an authority or body controlled and aided by the Government. ACB has jurisdiction to investigate the disproportionate assets case. The interim order stands vacated.
Law Points
- expansive definition of public servant under Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- employees of government-controlled cooperative societies fall under Section 2(c)(iii)
- government aid and control determine public status
- mere registration of crime not to be quashed if prima facie case exists
