IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-12693 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 3.5.2011. Akhtar Hussain ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Parashar, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By this petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Akhtar Hussain-petitioner seeks quashing of First Information Report No. 53 dated October 18th, 2007 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Prosecution was launched on the statement of Jagat Singh. He filed complaint in Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Faridabad on October 18th, 2007 stating that petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs.60,000/- from him for giving him cheque of loan amount of Rs.2,67,000/- issued by Primary Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Ballabgarh (for short 'the Cooperative Bank'). The petitioner was working as Land Valuation Officer in the Bank. On the complaint of Jagat Singh, a raiding party consisting of Ramesh Pal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Naib Tehsildar Ballabgarh and Rambir Singh an independent witness was formed. The currency notes worth Rs.60,000/- were initialed by the aforesaid officers. The said amount was paid by Jagat Singh to the petitioner and immediately on raid, the amount was recovered from the petitioner. Hence, the First Information Report was lodged against him after obtaining sanction from the competent authority viz. Managing Director, Haryana State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank. Criminal Misc. No. M-12693 of 2011 (O&M) (2) 3. The solitary submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being an employee of the Bank was not 'public servant' and as such, he could not be prosecuted under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. To support the contention, he has relied upon Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Venku Reddy, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 557. 4. It is admitted case of the petitioner that the Government has its share in the Bank and it is controlled by the State Government meaning thereby the Bank is being aided by the Government. This Court in Criminal Revision No. 1031 of 2009 titled Surender Singh vs. State of Haryana decided on February 10 th , 2011 while relying upon the authority referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner held that an employee of a Cooperative Bank, which is controlled and aided by the Government, is a 'public servant' 5. Above being the legal position, no ground is made out to quash the FIR. 6. Dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 3.5.2011. SN