T. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner assails the order dated 8-11-1999 passed by the learned Principal special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, hyderabad, in Crl. M. P. No. 294 of 1994 in c. C. No. 26 of 1994. ( 2 ) THE respondent-Anti-Corruption bureau represented by its Inspector, C. I. U. , a. C. B. , Hyderabad, laid the charge sheet against the revision petitioner alleging inter alia that the petitioner is the Zonal Manager of the A. P. State Co-operative Bank Limited, a society registered under the A. P. Co-operative societies Act, 1964 ( the A. P. C. S act for brevity), and the said Bank has been receiving financial assistance from A. P. State government under Section 43 of the A. P. C. S. Act. He was holding the post of Secretary upto 1981 which was redesignated as Zonal manager from 1981 onwards, involving the same duties of advancing loans and recovery of the same. While working in various capacities the petitioner acquired various movable and immovable assets to the tune of rs. 17,61,142/- which are disproportionate to his known sources of income for which he was not able to explain satisfactorily and, therefore, committed the offence punishable under Section 13 (l) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( the P. C. Act for brevity ). ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the summonses issued by the Court, the petitioner appeared before the special Court and when the case was coming up for consideration as to whether the charge could be framed, he filed a petition seeking discharge. It is averred inter alia in the said petition that the petitioner is not a public servant being an employee of the A. P. State co-operative Bank Limited. The said Bank is being governed by an elected Board of director or Managing Commance by its members and is being run with the interest and/or profits from the loans and advances given to various categories of loanees and that the said Bank borrows from the nabard and there has been no aid or grant of financial assistance from. the Central or state Government and, therefore, he being not an elected President, Secretary, or other office bearer of the said society, is not a public servant as defined under Sec. 2 (c) (ix) of the P. C. Act. the Central or state Government and, therefore, he being not an elected President, Secretary, or other office bearer of the said society, is not a public servant as defined under Sec. 2 (c) (ix) of the P. C. Act. It is further averred that the assets acquired prior to 9-9-1988 on which date the P. C. Act of 1988 came into force cannot be considered for the purpose of knowing as to whether the petitioner is a public servant within the definition of section 2 (c) of the P. C. Act. The case of the petitioner, therefore, shall have to be considered under Section 21 of the Indian penal Code ( the I. P. C. for brevity) inasmuch as the P. C. Act, 1947 adopted the definition of "public servant" as given under Section 21 of the I. P. C. and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as a public servant under section 21 of the I. P. C. ( 4 ) THE said petition was resisted by the respondent-Anti-Corruption Bureau by filing a counter. After hearing on either side, under the impugned order, as aforesaid, the learned Principal Special Judge dismissed the said petition. This revision case is, therefore, directed against the said order. ( 5 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would contend that the petitioner being an employee of the A. P. State Co-operative bank Limited, a society registered under A. P. C. S. Act, is not a public servant and as such the Special Court has no jurisdiction to try the petitioner. The learned senior counsel would contend further that under Section 129 of the A. P. C. S. Act, certain officers of the Society are deemed to be public servants for the purpose of the said Act but they never become public servants as defined under Section 2 (c) of the P. C. Act. ( 6 ) REPELLING the said contentions, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Anti- corruption Bureau, would contend that the a. P. State Co-operative Bank Limited is controlled and aided by the A. P. State government and, therefore, under Sec. 2 (c) (iii) of the P. C. Act the petitioner is a public servant. ( 6 ) REPELLING the said contentions, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Anti- corruption Bureau, would contend that the a. P. State Co-operative Bank Limited is controlled and aided by the A. P. State government and, therefore, under Sec. 2 (c) (iii) of the P. C. Act the petitioner is a public servant. ( 7 ) THE only point that arises for my determination in this Revision Case is as to whether the revision petitioner is a public servant as contained in Section 2 (c) (iii) of the p. C. Act? ( 8 ) IT is obvious that the petitioner worked in different capacities having been appointed initially as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in district Co-operative Central Bank Limited, warangal on 1-5-1958 and at the relevant time he was been working as Zonal Manager at Tirupati Zone of A. P. State Co-operative bank Limited during the period from 1988 to 1989. A case had been registered against him in Cr. No. 9/acb/wrl/89 by the Inspector of Police, City Range, C. I. U. , A. C. B. , hyderabad, under Section 13 (l) (e) read with 13 (2) of the P. C. Act for the alleged possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 17,61,142/- and eventually after investigation he laid the charge-sheet in c. C. No. 26 of 1994 before the Court of principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad. The petitioner seeks discharge on the premise that he is not a public servant. ( 9 ) OBVIOUSLY, the check period includes the period subsequent to the advent of the p. C. Act, 1988 as well as the period anterior thereto. The whole period should be taken into consideration and it cannot be segregated as contended by the revision petitioner. In my considered view, therefore undoubtedly the provisions of the P. C. Act, 1988 would apply to the case of the revision petitioner. Having regard to the same the contention that the assets said to have been acquired by the petitioner prior to the advent of the new P. C. Act, 1988 cannot be taken into consideration against the petitioner inasmuch as the definition enjoined under section 21 of the I. P. C. has been adopted by the old P. C. Act, 1947 and that he is not a public servant as enumerated under Sec. 21 of the I. P. C, all merits no consideration. ( 10 ) APROPOS the other contention that the revision petitioner being an employee of the a. P. State Co-operative Bank Limited, a society registered under A. P. C. S. Act, having regard to the competing claims of the petitioner as well as the respondent, it is apt here to consider whether the A. P. State Co-operative bank Limited is owned or controlled or aided by the A. P. State government. It may be reiterated here that the rival contentions on the point appear to be that A. P. State Co-operative Bank Limited is being governed by its elected Board of directors or the Managing Committee and is not receiving any aid or grant or financial assistance from Central or State Government and, therefore, the employees of the said society are not public servants; qua the contention that the A. P. State Co-operative bank Limited is a body which has been receiving financial aid from the A. P. State government and the same is a Banking company under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and that A. P. State Co-operative Bank limited is a Scheduled Bank included in the second Schedule annexed to the Reserve bank of India Act, 1981 and, therefore, the petitioner being an employee of the said bank is a public servant as defined under section 2 (c) (iii) of the P. C. Act. In this regard, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for anti-Corruption Bureau, seeks to place reliance upon the bye-laws of the A. P. State co-operative Bank Limited, Hyderabad. As can be seen from the preamble portion of the bye-laws, the A. P. State Co-operative Bank limited, Vijayawada and the Hyderabad Co-operative apex Bank Limited, Hyderabad, have been amalgamated and as a result thereof, the A. P. State Co-operative Bank limited has been established under the A. P. State Co-operative Bank (Formation Act), 1963 (Act 12 of 1963) and the said A. P. State co-operative Bank Limited is deemed to have been registered as a co-operative society under the A. P. C. S. Act. As can be seen from the bye-law No. 7, all the Co-operative Central banks registered or deemed to have been registered under the A. P. C. S. Act and such other Central Banks as may be registered under the law in force from time to time and also the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall be the members of the A. P. State Co-operative bank Limited, Hyderabad. It is obvious, therefore, that by virtue of the bye- law No. 7, the District Co-operative Central bank Limited, Warangal, wherein the revision petitioner had been appointed as ldc, is a member of the A. P. State Co-operative bank Limited by operation of Law. Therefore, the revision petitioner being the zonal Manager of the A. P. State Co-operative bank Limited at the relevant point of time which Bank came under the A. P. State Co-operative bank (Formation Act), 1963 by means of a legislation and by operation of law it is deemed to have been registered as co-operative society under the A. P. C. S. Act and having regard to the bye-laws of the A. P. Co-operative Bank Limited is under the control of the A. P. State Government. ( 11 ) THE learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner seeks to place reliance upon a Judgment of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Rao. In para 4 of its Judgment, the Apex Court held that for the determination of the question as to whether the accused in the present case comes within the purview of the sub-clauses (iii) or (ix) of Section 2 (c) of the p. C. Act, 1988, an enquiry into facts relating to the management, control and funding of the society is necessary. ( 12 ) IN Govt. of A. P. v. P. Venku Reddy the apex Court held that the employees of a co-operative society, which is controlled or aided by the Government, are covered within the comprehensive definition of "public servant" as contained in Section 2 (c) (iii) of the P. C. Act. That was a case where the respondent- venku Reddy was an employee working as supervisor in District Co-operative Central bank Limited, Nellore, and he was sought to be prosecuted for the offence of accepting bribe punishable under Section 13 (2) of the P. C. Act. That was a case where the respondent- venku Reddy was an employee working as supervisor in District Co-operative Central bank Limited, Nellore, and he was sought to be prosecuted for the offence of accepting bribe punishable under Section 13 (2) of the P. C. Act. On a petition filed by him under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, a Division Bench of this Court quashed the proceedings against him on the sole premise that he was not a pubic servant as defined under sub-clause (ix) of clause (c) of Section 2 of the P. C. Act, 1988. A. P. State government and District Co-operative central Bank Limited, Nellore, through its general Manager filed appeals before the Apex Court. Having regard to the sub-clauses (iii) and (ix) of clause (c) of Sec. 2 of the P. C. Act, 1988, the Apex Court held in para 12 thus:"12. In construing the definition of "public servant" in clause (c) of Section 2 of the 1988 Act, the court is required to adopt a purposive approach as would give effect to the intention of the legislature. In that view the Statement Of objects and Reasons contained in the Bill leading to the passing of the Act can be taken assistance of. It gives the background in which the legislation was enacted. The present Act, with a much wider definition of "public servant", was brought in force to purify public administration. When the legislature has used such a comprehensive definition of "public servant" to achieve the purpose of punishing and curbing growing corruption in government and semi- government departments, it would be appropriate not to limit the contents of the definition clause by construction which would be against the spirit of the statute. The definition of "public servant", therefore, deserves a wide construction. "the Apex Court placed reliance upon its earlier Judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Rao (referred to 1 supra ). The contention that inasmuch as sub-clause (ix) of clause (c) of Section 2 covers only the president, Secretary or other office bearers of a registered co-operative society, the employees of the co-operative society are excluded, has been repelled and the Apex court was of the view that sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of Section 2 cannot be overlooked. The contention that inasmuch as sub-clause (ix) of clause (c) of Section 2 covers only the president, Secretary or other office bearers of a registered co-operative society, the employees of the co-operative society are excluded, has been repelled and the Apex court was of the view that sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of Section 2 cannot be overlooked. Therefore, it was held ultimately that the respondent-Venku Reddy in that case who was an employee of the District Co-operative central Bank Limited, Nellore, is a public servant. ( 13 ) IT may be reiterated here that as per the bye-law No. 7, all Central Banks shall be members of A. P. Co-operative Bank Limited, hyderabad. As can be seen from the bye- laws it is obvious further that all these co-operative Societies are being controlled by the A. P. State Government which shall also be a member by operation of law under bye-law No. 7 of the said Co-operative Bank limited, Hyderabad. After having gone through the provisions of A. P. State Co-operative bank (Formation Act), 1963 (Act 12 of 1963) and the bye-laws framed thereunder, I am of the considered view that there can be no room for any doubt that all these Co-operative Banks either at the District level or at the State Level which are all the members of the A. P. State Co-operative Bank limited, are being controlled by the A. P. State Government. ( 14 ) IT is appropriate, therefore, at this juncture to consider certain of the provisions contained in the P. C. Act. Section 2 is the definition clause. Clause (c) thereof seeks to define the expression "public servant". Under clause (c), as many as 12 categories of persons have been enumerated who would come within the meaning of the expression "public servant". Sub-clauses (i), (ii), (iv) to (viii), and (x) to (xii) are not relevant for the present purposes. There remains, therefore, sub- clauses (iii) and (ix) which are germane for consideration in the context. Under clause (c), as many as 12 categories of persons have been enumerated who would come within the meaning of the expression "public servant". Sub-clauses (i), (ii), (iv) to (viii), and (x) to (xii) are not relevant for the present purposes. There remains, therefore, sub- clauses (iii) and (ix) which are germane for consideration in the context. A perusal of sub-clause (ix) of clause (c) shows that any person who is the president, secretary or other office bearer of a registered co-operative society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having receive any financial aid from the Central government or a State Government or from any corporation established by either the central Government or a State Government, or any authority or body owned or controlled or aided by either the Central Government or a State Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956; is a public servant within the meaning of the expression "public servant" under Sec. 2 (c) of the P. C. Act. Obviously, none of the petitioners is a president, secretary, or other office bearer of the society. Sub-clause (iii) is apt here to be considered and the same may be excerpted hereunder thus:"any person in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a central, provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. " (Emphasis is mine) ( 15 ) A perusal of the said provision shows that it is in two parts, namely, (i) a person who is in the service or pay of corporation established by or under a Central, provincial or State Act; and (ii) any person in the service or pay of an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a government company as defined under section 617 of the Companies Act. The first part of the definition obviously has no application, having regard to the fact that a. P. State Co-operative Bank Limited is not a corporation established either by the Central or State Government under any Statute. The first part of the definition obviously has no application, having regard to the fact that a. P. State Co-operative Bank Limited is not a corporation established either by the Central or State Government under any Statute. The second part of the sub-clause is got to be considered which reads that if the person is in the service or pay of an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the government is a public servant. Therefore, it is to be seen whether the revision petitioner is in the service or pay of an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the state Government. It may be reiterated here that it is the specific case of the respondent- anti-Corruption Bureau that A. P. State Co-operative bank Limited has been receiving financial assistance from the State government under Section 43 of the A. P. C. S. Act. This statement of fact as mentioned in the counter affidavit has not been controverted. It is obvious, therefore, that a. P. State Co-operative Bank Limited is a registered society which has been receiving financial assistance from A. P. State government. ( 16 ) EVEN otherwise as discussed hereinabove, the A. P. State Co-operative bank is being controlled by the Statement government. In either view of the matter, the second limb of sub-clause (3) of Clause- c is squarely attracted in this case. The petitioner who is in the service or pay of the a. P. State Co-operative Bank Limited for the reasons as discussed hereinabove is a public servant. ( 17 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I see no illegality or material irregularity that has been committed by the learned Principal special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, hyderabad. The Criminal Revision Case, therefore, fails and is dismissed.