Accused, a Secretary of Agricultural Credit Society who discharges public duty in the form of day-to-day administration of Society, shall be regarded as a “public servant”

Complainant, member of Agricultural Credit Society availed loan of Rs.60,000/- as ''Agricultural Jewel Loan'' by pledging 39.400 grams of jewels. The government waived agricultural jewel loans as well as payment of interest with direction to Societies to return jewels pledged by farmers. Accused who was working as Secretary in Society, demanded and accepted illegal gratification for returning the jewels to the complainant. The trap laid was successful.

During the trial, the accused pleaded that persons working in Cooperative Societies cannot come within the ambit of ''public servant'' and that apart, since the accused was employed in a Cooperative Society, it is not amenable to the provisions of the PC Act, said plea not tenable.

Funds of the Society in which the accused is employed as the Secretary is not generated only by way of contribution to the share capital/membership fees but also upon availing funds from the District Central Cooperative Bank as well as the State Government.

Accused who is the Secretary of the Society, discharges public duty in the form of the day-to-day administration of the Society and in the light of the fact that the Government had extended benevolence by waiving agricultural loan given to the members of the Society and when a member approaches him for return of jewels pledged, he is said to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification and it does not form part of the duty and responsibility assigned to him. The Secretary of the Cooperative Society is also a public servant and he performs/discharges public duty. Agricultural Credit Society which came into being for the benefit of agriculturists and the petitioner, being the Secretary of the Society, who is in charge of the day-to-day administration of the Society is a “public servant.

For a person to be regarded as a public servant, three conditions have to be fulfilled. As of the status of the relevant person, he must be the President or Secretary or other office-bearer of a registered co-operative society. As to the nature of the business that the co-operative society must be engaged in, the relevant areas would be agriculture, industry, trade or banking. The third aspect is of such registered co-operative society, in which the person holds the office of President or Secretary or office bearer and which registered co-operative society is engaged in the business of agriculture, industry, trade or banking, also receiving financial aid from the Government bodies specified or had received financial aid from the specified Government bodies at the relevant point of time.

However, merely because a person is a public servant may not make him amenable to prosecution, unless the offence pertains to the discharge of any duty that he is required to perform in the usual course of his employment. “Public duty” means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest. A person would be a public servant if he holds an office by which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty. A person ought to be regarded as a public servant within the meaning of the definition of the said Act if such person holds an office under which he is authorised or required to perform any duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest.

Accused's capacity as the Secretary to the relevant registered co-operative society engaged in agriculture, it was in the usual course of his duties to obtain jewellery, to grant the loan, to accept repayment and to return the jewellery. The discharge of such duty, therefore, must be seen as a public duty within the meaning of the relevant expression. Accused has to be regarded as a public servant.

Appearing Counsel/s : Mr.G.Thalai Mutharasu, Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan