1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.179 OF 2009 Satnamsingh Harisingh Tiwana ...Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Niranjan Mundergi for the applicant Mr.Rajesh More A.P.P. for State CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : June 26,2009 P.C.: 1 Heard Shri Mundargi appearing for the applicant. The applicant is accused no.1 who has been prosecuted for offences under section 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. An application for discharge was moved by the applicant. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant was a municipal Corporator of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay when the alleged offence has been committed. A submission was made that he is not a public servant under section 2(c) of the said Act of 1988. An application for discharge made by the applicant seeking discharage on the said ground has been rejected by the impugned order. 2 The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Municipal Corporator cannot be a public servant as he does not hold any public office and he does not hold any post 2 which requires him to perform any public duty. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Judge has taken an erroneous view of the matter. 3 I have perused the impugned Judgment and order. The learned trial Judge has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.V.Narasinha Rao vs. State (AIR 1998 SC 2120). After considering the said decision, and considering sub clause (viii) of section 2 (c)of the said Act of 1988, the learned Judge rightly held that the Municipal Corporator is a public servant within the meaning of the said Act of of 1988. There is no reason to find fault with the view taken by the learned Special Judge. Revision application is rejected. JUDGE