Judgment The present application has been filed for quashing the charges leveled against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468 of I.P.C. and Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Brief facts of the case are that the State of Chhattisgarh decided to purchase corn and rice from the cultivators on the price fixed by the Government i.e. Rs.360/- per quintal and for that M.P. Civil Supply Corporation selected Kondagaon Co-operative Society, Kisan Rice Mill, Kondagaon. The accused persons purchased the rice. This was unearthed by the press. One Nalin Pandey lodged the complaint that the purchase of corn was made on fictitious name and records were manipulated and for that fictitious receipts were prepared in the name of persons either who have died or who have left the concerned village. On that complaint, it was found that Rs.4,99,763/- have been misappropriated. Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is relevant as it defines "public servant", which reads as under: "2. On that complaint, it was found that Rs.4,99,763/- have been misappropriated. Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is relevant as it defines "public servant", which reads as under: "2. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) xxxx xxxx xxxx (b) xxxx xxxx xxxx (c) "public servant" means- (i) any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty; (ii) any person in the service or pay of a local authority; (iii) 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 (1 of 1956); (iv) any Judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions; (v) any person authorized by a court of justice to perform any duty, in connection with the administration of justice, including a liquidator, receiver or commissioner appointed by such court; (vi) any arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by a court of justice or by a competent public authority; (vii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election; (viii) any person who holds an officer by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform any public duty; (ix) 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 received any financial aid from the Central Government or a State Government or from any corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or any authority or body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (x) any person who is a chairman, member or employee of any Service Commission or Board, by whatever name called, or a member of any selection committee appointed by such Commission or Board for the conduct of any examination or making any selection on behalf of such Commission or Board; (xi) any person who is a Vice Chancellor or member of any governing body, professor, reader, lecturer or any other teacher or employee, by whatever designation called, of any University and any person whose services have been availed of by a University or any other public authority in connection with holding or conducting examinations; (xii) any person who is an office-bearer or an employee of an educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution, in whatever manner established, receiving or having received any financial assistance from the Central Government or any State Government or local or other public authority. Explanation 1.- Persons falling under any of the above sub-clauses are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not. Explanation 2.- Wherever the words `public servant' occur, they shall be understood of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a public servant, whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that situation." The Hon. Apex Court in the case of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. P. Venku Reddy reported in AIR 2002 SC 3346 while dealing with the definition of "public servant" in paras 8 and 12 of the judgment, has held as under: "8. From the above quoted sub-clause (ix) of Clause (c) of S. 2 of the 1988 Act, it is evident that in the expansive definition of `public servant', elected office-bearers with President and Secretary of a registered cooperative society which is engaged in trade among others in `banking' and `receiving or having received any financial aid' from the Central or State Government, are included although such elected office bearers are not servants in employment of the co-operative societies. But employees or servants of a cooperative society, which is controlled or aided by the government, are covered by sub-clause (iii) of Clause (c) of S. 2 of the 1988 Act. Merely because such employees of cooperative societies are not covered by sub-clause (ix) alongwith holders of elective officers, High Court ought not to have over looked that the respondent, who is admittedly an employee of a co- operative bank which is controlled and aided by the government, is covered within the comprehensive definition of `public servant' as contained in sub- clause (iii) of clause (c) of S. 2 of the 1988 Act. It is not disputed that the respondent/accused is in service of a cooperative Central Bank which is an `authority or body' controlled and aided by the government. 12. In construing definition of `public servant' in Clause (c) of S. 2 of the 1988 Act, the Court is required to adopt a purposive approach as would give effect to the intention of legislature. In that view Statement of Objects and Reasons contained in the Bill leading to the passing of the Act can be taken of assistance of. It gives the background in which the legislation was enacted. The present Act, with much wider definition of `public servant', was brought in force to purify public administration. In that view Statement of Objects and Reasons contained in the Bill leading to the passing of the Act can be taken of assistance of. It gives the background in which the legislation was enacted. The present Act, with much wider definition of `public servant', was brought in force to purify public administration. When the legislature has used such 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 definition clause by construction, which would be against the spirit of the statute. The definition of `public servant', therefore, deserves a wide construction (See State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shri Ram Singh (AIR 2000 SC 575)." Learned counsel for the applicants stated that the applicants are not public servants within the definition of Prevention of Corruption Act as they are the persons employed in the Co-operative Society. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.S. Dhanoa vs. Municipal Corporation, Delhi reported in AIR 1981 SC 1395. The abovesaid is a case where I.A.S. was on deputation and the contention was that he could not be prosecuted without the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. That plea was rejected by the Apex Court and it was held that sanction to prosecute is not required. The said judgment does not help the applicants. In construing definition of `public servant' in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of P. Venku Reddu (supra) , the Court is required to adopt a purposive approach as would give effect to the intention of legislature. The present Act, with much wider definition of `public servant', was brought in force to purify public administration. When the legislature has used such 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 definition clause by construction, which would be against the spirit of the statute. In view of the aforesaid provisions and the law laid down by the Hon. Apex Court, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are not public servants is not sustainable and is accordingly rejected. In view of the aforesaid provisions and the law laid down by the Hon. Apex Court, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are not public servants is not sustainable and is accordingly rejected. So far as the charge is concerned, it is contended that there is no material. A perusal of the charge-sheet, first information report, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and documents seized goes to show that there is prima facie material. The learned court below has considered. This Court has also gone through. For the purpose of charge, the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh -v- S.B. Johri (2000 AIR SCW 189), held that charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. The present one is not a case where there is no iota of evidence. The material is there for the purpose offraming of charge. Accordingly, the revision fails and is dismissed. Consequently, M.Cri.P. No.261/05 also stands disposed of.