Observing that farmers constitute 60% of the country’s population and that they can be indubitably characterised as public at large, the Madras High Court has held that office-bearers of agricultural cooperative credit societies basically perform a public duty and hence they could be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988.
Justice P.N. Prakash held so while refusing to quash case booked in 2017 against the then president and secretary of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited at Thengiyanatham village in Chinnasalem Taluk of Villupuram district for having allegedly demanded bribe of ₹25,000 to settle the terminal benefits of a retired employee.
The petitioners’ counsel R. John Sathyan brought it to the notice of the judge that a Division Bench of the High Court had recently quashed a circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in 2015 declaring office-bearers of cooperative societies to be public servants liable to be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A single judge in the Madurai Bench had differed with the Division Bench verdict and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench. Therefore, the counsel urged Justice Prakash to refer the present quash petition also to the Chief Justice so that it could be tagged along with the other case and heard by a larger Bench.
Not finding any necessity to do so, the judge agreed with Advocate General Vijay Narayan that office-bearers of cooperative societies which perform public duties, unlike thrift societies formed for the benefit of private company employees, would squarely fall under the definition of public servants and could be prosecuted under the 1988 Act.
“The Registrar of Cooperative Societies had no authority to issue an omnibus circular saying that all the employees of a cooperative society are public servants within the meaning of the PC Act… Interpretation of a statute does not vest with the executive, but with the judiciary. By an executive fiat, some persons can neither be brought within the net of a penal law nor taken out.
“The work of the executive is to place the facts before the court and it is the function of the court to decide whether the alleged act would fall within the net of a penal law. Therefore, the Division Bench had rightly quashed the circular dated August 11, 2015. Only if this court disagrees with the view, will there be a need for referring to a larger Bench.
“The petitioners herein are not being prosecuted under the PC Act based on the interpretation of the expression 'public servant' given by the Registrar of cooperative societies in the circular but are being prosecuted based on the bare provisions of the PC Act. Hence, the quashing of the circular will be of no avail to the petitioners,” the judge observed.
Further pointing out that the bylaws of the society in question provide for receipt of State aid for advancing loans to farmers, the judge quoted a Supreme Court ruling wherein it was held that even a sprinkle of such aid to a cooperative society would bring its office-bearers and employees within the definition of public servant.
