VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

976 DECISION - 549
akin to or on the lines of Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The other reason why the bars of limitation enacted
in Common Cause (I), Common Cause (II) and Raj Deo Sharma (I)
and Raj Deo Sharma (II) cannot be sustained is that these decisions
run counter to that extent to the dictum of constitution Bench in A.R.
Antulay’s case and therefore cannot be said to be good law to the
extent they are in breach of the doctrine of precedents.
After elaborate consideration, the Supreme Court held that
in Common Cause (I), 1996(4) SCC 32, Common Cause(II), 1996(6)
SCC 775, Raj Deo Sharma (I), 1998(7) SCC 507 and Raj Deo Sharma
(II), 1999(7) SCC 604, the court could not have prescribed periods of
limitation beyond which the trial of a criminal case or a criminal
proceeding cannot continue and must mandatorily be closed followed
by an order acquitting or discharging the accused, and overruled the
above-said four decisions.
(549)
(A) Public Servant
(B) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 2(c)
Employees of a co-operative society which is
controlled or aided by the Government, are public
servants covered by sub-clause (iii) of cl. (c) of sec.
2 of the P.C. Act, 1988.
Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Venku Reddy,
2002(3) Decisions Today (SC) 399
Government of Andhra Pradesh and District Co-operative
Central Bank Limited, Nellore, through its General Manager, preferred
this appeal challenging the order dated 26-9-2001 of the Division
Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby criminal case
instituted against the respondent/accused, who was working as
Supervisor in the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Nellore,
for alleged offence of accepting bribe punishable under provisions of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been quashed.
The High Court by the impugned order quashed the criminal