This Criminal R.C. is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.365 of 2008 in Spl.Case No.8 of 2007 on 29.11.2008 by the Spl.Judge (Vigilance and Anti Corruption) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.
2. The petitioner is the second accused. He filed a petition under
Section 239 Cr.P.C. stating that he was not a public servant under
Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was engaged only on contract basis and hence, he should be discharged from the case.
3. Learned Special Judge (Vigilance and Anti Corruption) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Hence the present Criminal R.C. by the petitioner.
4. A1-Karupasamy is the Assistant and A2-Ramraj is the Manager, the petitioner herein. According to them, they were employed by the Tamil Nadu Ex- Servicemen Corporation Limited(TEXCO), Saidapet, Chennai on contract basis.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the terms and conditions of the contract would show that the petitioner is not a public servant and he is entitled to receive the charges and service tax from the persons who utilised the services.
6. Learned Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted that as per
Section 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioner is a public servant and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai is valid in law.
7.
Section 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, reads as under:-
"2(c) "public servant" means,-
(viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty."
8. TEXCO is a Tamil Nadu Government Undertaking and the same is not disputed. The petitioner was discharging the duties on contract basis. As per
Section 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, any person holding an office, by virtue of which, he is authorised or required to perform any public duty, is a public servant. Therefore, the petitioner will come only under the definition of
Section 2(c)(viii) of the Act.
9. Since the petitioner is a public servant, the prosecution cannot be found fault with. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai had carefully analysed the various aspects and came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner is not correct.
10. On a careful consideration of the materials on record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is a public servant. I find no reason to differ with the view of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.365 of 2008 in Spl.Case No.8 of 2007 on 29.11.2008 by the Spl.Judge (Vigilance and Anti Corruption) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai is liable to be confirmed and accordingly it is confirmed and the Criminal R.C. is dismissed.
KM To The Special Judge (Vigilance and Anti Corruption) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.