Supreme Court: Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 applies to Private Banks as well
of Govt. of A.P. and others vs. Venku Reddy (supra), in
which while interpreting word ‘public servant’ this court
has made following observations:
“12. In construing the definition of “public
servant” in clause (c) of Section 2 of the 1988 Act,
the court is required to adopt a purposive
approach as would give effect to the intention of
the legislature. In that view the Statement of
Objects and Reasons contained in the Bill leading
to the passing of the Act can be taken assistance
of. It gives the background in which the legislation
was enacted. The present Act, with a much wider
definition of “public servant”, was brought in force
to purify public administration. When the
legislature has used such a comprehensive
definition of “public servant” to achieve the
purpose of punishing and curbing growing
corruption in government and semi-government
departments, it would be appropriate not to limit
the contents of the definition clause by
construction which would be against the spirit of
the statute. The definition of “public servant”,
therefore, deserves a wide construction. (See State
of M.P. v. Shri Ram Singh (2000) 5 SCC 88)”
24. In the light of law laid down by this court as above,
it is clear that object of enactment of P.C. Act, 1988, was
to make the anti corruption law more effective and widen
its coverage. In view of definition of public servant in
25Section 46A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as amended
the Managing Director and Executive Director of a
Banking Company operating under licence issued by
Reserve Bank Of India, were already public servants, as
such they cannot be excluded from definition of ‘public
servant’. We are of the view that over the general
definition of ‘public servant’ given in Section 21 of IPC, it
is the definition of ‘public servant’ given in the P.C. Act,
1988, read with Section 46-A of Banking Regulation Act,
which holds the field for the purposes of offences under
the said Act. For banking business what cannot be
forgotten is Section 46A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949
and merely for the reason that Sections 161 to 165A of
IPC have been repealed by the P.C. Act, 1988, relevance
of Section 46A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, is not
lost.
The Court held that all officials of a private bank operating under the license issued by the Reserve Bank of India would be defined as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a law meant to prosecute government employees caught indulging in a corrupt practice. Further, bank employees, whether private or government, discharge a public duty in which the state, the public or the community at large has an interest and as such performance of such public duty by a person who is holding an office which requires or authorise him to perform such duty is the sine qua non of the definition of the public servant contained in Section 2 (c) (viii) of the PC Act. The Court further held that the Banking Regulation Act (BR), 1949, cannot be left meaningless and requires harmonious construction.
The said judgment is significant as vide the said judgment the Supreme Court of India has expanded the scope of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by bringing all private bank employees under the ambit of the anti-graft law, which, was so far been only applied against corrupt government officials.
REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1077-1081 OF 2013
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Bank Securities & Fraud Cell .....Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Gelli and Others ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 167 OF 2015
Ramesh Gelli ...Writ Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation through
Superintendent of Police, BS & FC & Anr. ...Respondents
Dated;February 23, 2016.
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/03/supreme-court-prevention-of-corruption.html
