Public-servant status in cooperative banks requires factual inquiry into financial aid and cannot be conclusively resolved before trial.

Public-servant status under Section 2(c)(ix) of the Prevention of Corruption Act depends on whether the cooperative society received financial aid from the Government or another specified body. "Aid" is undefined and must be construed broadly in furtherance of the anti-corruption purpose; assistance at establishment, construction or otherwise may be relevant. The society's management, funding and receipt of aid require factual enquiry. Banking regulation and the Article 12 test do not determine this criminal-law issue. The article notes that public-servant status should be decided at trial, rather than conclusively at the pre-trial quashing stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could quash corruption-related investigation notices by conclusively holding, at the pre-trial stage, that an employee of a multi-State cooperative bank was not a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The applicability of Section 2(c)(ix) depends on whether the cooperative society received financial aid from the Government or another specified body. The expression "aid" is undefined and is to be understood broadly in light of the anti-corruption object of the enactment; even aid provided at establishment, construction, or otherwise may be material. Determination of the society's management, funding and receipt of aid required factual enquiry. Regulatory supervision under banking legislation and the Article 12 test were not determinative of this criminal-law question. The factual issue ought not to have been conclusively determined in proceedings seeking quashing before trial.

Conclusion: The question whether the respondent was a public servant must be determined during trial; the High Court's contrary pre-trial determination and quashing of the notices could not stand.

---