Criminal Revision No.1031 of 2009 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1031 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.02.2011. Surender Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. assisted by Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate, for the complainant. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated March 27th, 2009 (Annexure P/2) of Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Sonepat, whereby, charge in respect of commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, : “the Act”) was ordered to be framed against the revision petitioner in case bearing First Information Report No. 5 dated January 24th, 2008, Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak. 2. Surender Singh – petitioner was working as Land Valuation Officer in the Primary Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Kharkhoda, District Sonepat (for short, “the Bank”). On January 24th, 2008, he demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/- from Krishan – complainant to get his loan sanctioned from the Bank. Prosecution was launched against him after obtaining sanction from the competent authority, viz. Managing Director, The Haryana State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Criminal Revision No.1031 of 2009 2 .. Development Bank Limited. 3. The solitary argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being an employee of the Bank was not a 'public servant' and as such, he could not be charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act. 4. The argument of the learned counsel is not acceptable in view of the judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court - Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P. Venku Reddy 2002 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 557, wherein, it was 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, the impugned order is free from any illegality and does not admit of any interference. The same is accordingly upheld and the revision petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 10.02.2011 som