JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J. — This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th February, 1984, of the Special Judge, Delhi, in Corruption Case No. 2/81, whereby the learned Judge has declined to proceed with the matter on the ground that the accused is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code to bring him within the mischief of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 since the Delhi High Court by a judgment of a Division Bench in Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.1 has ruled that a bank employee is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Special Judge, are as under: "In this case, accused Sri-vardhan along with his real brother Deepak Chaudhary running a commercial firm in the name of Woodshapers was charged under Sections 420/468/471/477-A, IPC and Section 5(l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and substantive offences under these provisions for having defrauded the Union Bank to the tune of about rupees five lakhs for giving bogus credits on the basis of false credit vouchers, cash scroll, clearing registers, transfer book and supplementary books maintained in the Bank in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy to cheat the said Bank between July, 1978 and May, 1979 by corrupt and illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant for showing false deposits and withdrawals in the bank account of Deepak Chaudhary’s firm." 3. The prosecution in order to establish its case has led considerable evidence when the accused moved an application to say that he was covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (supra) and, therefore, could not be tried by the Special Judge as he was not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code to bring him within the mischief of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 4. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the State as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent, I have gone through the judgment under challenge as also the material placed before me. 4. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the State as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent, I have gone through the judgment under challenge as also the material placed before me. I find that the impugned judgment is based on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors., 1982 Cr.LJ 2230, which ultimately came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar Mitra2, wherein the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms has held that an employee of a nationalized bank is covered under the definition of the "public servant" under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 applies. It has further overruled the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (supra) relied upon by the learned Special Judge in its impugned judgment. That being the case, bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court, as I am, I have no option but to allow the appeal of the appellant. Accordingly, Crl.A. 94/1984 is allowed and disposed of. The impugned order dated 27th February, 1984 is set aside. The Special Judge is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Lower Court record, if any, be sent back forthwith. Appeal allowed. *******