IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 7763 of 2009 Between: Gottipalli Nageswara Rao . .Petitioner And Addepalli Murali Venkata Ratnam and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7763 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Ravikiran Rao, learned standing counsel for ACB for the 2nd respondent. No notice is being ordered to the 1st respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2) The petitioner is facing prosecution under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the alleged culpable conduct while acting as official receiver. The petitioner contends not only that he is innocent of the offences, but also that he is not a public servant within the meaning of the Act. 3) However, the very definition of public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 under Section 2(c) included, any person authorized by a Court of Justice to perform any duty in connection with the Administration of Justice including a liquidator, receiver or Commissioner appointed by such Court within the meaning of the word Public Servant. Explanation to the said definition further amplifies that persons falling under any of the above said clauses of Section 2(c) are public servants whether appointed by the Government or not. The plain unambiguous language of the definition of the word public servant in the statute rules out any scope for the official receiver contending that he is not a public servant. 4) In so far as the claims of innocence of the petitioner are concerned, they are questions of fact and the allegations of the prosecution and the denials of the petitioner are matters to be gone into by the trial Court on merits in accordance with law on the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it during trial. The same cannot be undertaken by this Court in this restricted enquiry under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Criminal Petition is therefore unsustainable. 5) Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-09-2009 KSH