SUPREME COURT: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Section 2(c ) (xi) - whether a ­trustee in the board of 'deemed to be university’ is a ‘public servant’ covered under the Act.

Latest Judgement

Supreme Court of India

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was amended in 1964   based   on   the   recommendations   of   the   Santhanam

Committee. Although, there are provisions in Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code to deal with public servants and those who

abet them by way of criminal misconduct, they were found to beinadequate to deal with the offence of corruption effectively. 

To make   the   anti­-corruption   laws   more effective, the Prevention of Corruption Bill was introduced in the Parliament. The object and statement of reasons   of   the   Act,   1988   was intended to make the existing anti-corruption laws more effective by widening their coverage and by strengthening the provisions. The Act 1988 caters to its wide scope by providing for “different paths to liability, some of which are especially suited to, but by no means confined to, those who hold public office.”

The present case relates to chargesheet against several accused persons, including the present respondent for various offences under Sections 7, 8, 10 and 13 (1) (b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The respondent herein filed a discharge application   under Section 227 of CrPC before the District and Sessions Court. The District and Sessions Court rejected the application.

The   High   Court,   by   the impugned judgment and order dated 02.02.2018, allowed the revision and discharged the accused ­respondent herein.

Aggrieved   by   the   impugned   order, the State   of   Gujarat   is   in appeal before Supreme Court.

The question that emerged for consideration in the present appeal is:-

whether the respondent ­trustee in the board of ‘deemed to be university’ is a ‘public servant’ covered under Section 2(c ) (xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Whether   the   accused­respondent   can be discharged under Section 227 of CrPC?

While deciding that whether the appellant­trustee in the Board of ‘Deemed to be University’ is a ‘public servant’ covered   under Section 2(c) of the PC Act. The Court observed:-

"Evidently, the language of Section 2(b) of the PC Act indicates that any duty discharged wherein State, the public or community at large has any interest is called a public duty. The first explanation to Section 2 further clarifies that any person who falls in any of the categories stated under Section 2 is a public servant whether or not appointed by the government. The second explanation further expands the ambit to include every person who  de facto  discharges the functions of a public servant, and that he should not be prevented from being brought under the ambit   of   public   servant   due   to   any legal   infirmities   or technicalities."

The Supreme Court further held that:-

"44. As discussed earlier, the object of the PC Act was not only to prevent the social evil of bribery and corruption, but also to make the same applicable to individuals who might conventionally not be considered public servants. The purpose under the PC Act was to shift focus from those who are traditionally called public officials, to those individuals who perform public duties. Keeping the same in mind, as rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant­ State, it cannot   be   stated   that   a “Deemed University” and the officials therein, perform any less or any different a public duty, than those performed by a University simpliciter, and the officials therein.

45. Therefore, for all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the High Court  was incorrect in holding that a “Deemed University” is excluded from the ambit of the term “University” under Section 2(c)(xi) of the PC Act."

Justice Ajay Rastogi observed:-

"Zero tolerance towards corruption should be the top­-notch priority for ensuring system based and policy driven, transparent and responsive governance. Corruption cannot be annihilated but strategically be dwindled by reducing monopoly and enabling transparency in decision making.  However, fortification of social and moral fabric must be an integral component of long-­term policy for nation building to accomplish corruption free society.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT BELOW:-