Public servant definition in bank corruption law extends to private bank executives under purposive statutory construction

A banking statute's deeming provision treating specified office-bearers of a banking company as public servants was read purposively and harmoniously with the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court noted that the Act's definition of public servant and public duty was broad, and that the legislative intent was to widen anti-corruption coverage rather than narrow it after offences moved from the Indian Penal Code. On that construction, the chairman, managing director and executive director of a private bank were held to fall within the public servant definition for corruption offences, making prosecution under the Act maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Chairman, Managing Director and Executive Director of a private banking company were public servants for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by reason of Section 46A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and whether prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was maintainable.

Analysis: Section 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 includes within the definition of public servant a person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty, and Section 2(b) defines public duty broadly. Section 46A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 deems the chairman on a whole-time basis, managing director, director, auditor, liquidator, manager and other employees of a banking company to be public servants for the purposes of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code. The legislative purpose of the 1988 Act was to widen anti-corruption coverage, and the omission to amend Section 46A after the transfer of offences from the Indian Penal Code to the 1988 Act was treated as unintended and capable of being corrected by harmonious and purposive construction. The office held by the accused was treated as one attached to public duty, and the deeming provision was held to continue to operate for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Conclusion: Yes. The accused office-bearers of the private bank were public servants for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the prosecution under that Act was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the courts below were set aside, the criminal appeals were allowed, and the connected writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A deeming provision in a banking statute treating specified office-bearers of a banking company as public servants must be read purposively and harmoniously so as to continue to apply to the anti-corruption regime where the legislature's intent was to widen, not narrow, the scope of public servant under the successor enactment.

---