Judgment : Nagamohan Das, J. 1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.07.2010 in Spl.CC.No.39/2005 passed by the Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore dismissing the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. 2. Petitioner was the Director of Mother Diary, Yelahanka, Bangalore. The Mother Diary is a unit of Karnataka Co- operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd, a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Society Act. According to the respondents petitioner is a public servant and had amassed wealth of Rs.14,14,087.76 disproportionate to his known source of income. After investigation the respondents filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act in C.C.No.39/2005 on the file of Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore city. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Special Court, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge mainly on the ground that he is not a public servant as defined under the provisions of the P.C.Act, the sanction to prosecute the petitioner as not valid and there is no material on record to frame a charge. Respondents filed objections interalia contending that the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, the cooperative society is an authority, petitioner is an employee of cooperative society and as such he is a public servant. The investigating material prima-facie establishes the charge against the petitioner. On the basis of the rival contentions the special court framed the following points for its consideration: I) Whether the accused is a public servant? II) Whether the sanction for prosecution of the accused is proper and valid? III) Whether the material on record is sufficient to frame charge against the accused? IV) What order? 3. After hearing arguments and on appreciation of material on record, the special court passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner is a public servant, sanction is valid, there are material on record to frame charge and consequently dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence this revision petition. 4. Sri S.K. Venkata Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the employer of the petitioner is an establishment and is not receiving any financial aid or assistance from the Government. The employer of the petitioner is an independent body and the Government has no control over it. Hence this revision petition. 4. Sri S.K. Venkata Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the employer of the petitioner is an establishment and is not receiving any financial aid or assistance from the Government. The employer of the petitioner is an independent body and the Government has no control over it. In the evidence of PW.1 no documents are produced to establish that Government has extended any financial assistance nor exercised any control over the establishment of the petitioner. The special court without appreciating the grounds urged by the petitioner committed an error in passing the impugned order and as such the same is liable to be set-aside. 5. Per contra, Smt.T.M.Gayathri, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order passed by the Special Court. It is contended that the employer of the petitioner is an authority which falls under Section 2 of the PC Act. The Special court by following the law laid down by the Apex Court rightly passed the impugned order. 6. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire petition papers. 7. Section 2(c)(iii) of the P.C.Act reads as under: 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) 8. Keeping the above definition in mind, it is necessary to examine the fact situation in the present case. It is not in dispute that Mother Diary is a unit of Karnataka Milk Producers Federation Limited, a cooperative society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. Clause 20.1, 20.2 and 26.8(a) specifies that the Government has control over it. Therefore, any person working in a cooperative society is a public servant. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a decision of the supreme court in State of Maharashtra vs. Laljit Rajshi Shah, AIR 2000 SC 937 contend that a public servant under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is not a public servant under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and therefore the petitioner is not a public servant for the purpose of provisions of P.C.Act. I decline to accept this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. I decline to accept this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The public servant as enumerated under the provisions of IPC is different from the public servant as defined under the provisions of the P.C.Act. The word 'public servant' in P.C.Act is having a wider meaning. On the other hand it is very narrow in the provisions of the IPC. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts on hand. For the reasons stated above, the petition is hereby dismissed.