Offences Under Prevention Of Corruption Act Can Be Invoked Against Persons Discharging Public Duty, Not Only Public Servants: J&K High Court

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal also clarified that it would be inappropriate to limit the definition by an interpretation which would be against the spirit of the statute.

“In furtherance of the fight against corruption, a broad interpretation to the provisions of this statute is required to be given and the arms of this Act are required to be extended to the maximum. The offences under the P.C.Act can be invoked not only against a public servant but also against a person, who by virtue of his office has been discharging 'public duty'”.

The ruling came in a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under the PC Act, 1988, against the proprietor of a firm and one of his employees. The firm's proprietor had constructed a godown on his land, which was subsequently leased to the Food Corporation of India (FCI).

A complaint was made by a truck driver, alleging that he was asked to pay a bribe by the owner of the Godown and a weigher to unload food grains from his truck. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in Srinagar.

Assailing the FIR, Senior counsel for the petitioner Adv Faisal Qadri contended that the petitioners were not public servants as defined under the Act and did not perform any public duty. He argued that the ACB had overstepped its jurisdiction in registering the FIR, asserting that the Prevention of Corruption Act applied exclusively to public servants.

On the other hand, Sr AAG Mohsin Qadri argued that the firm's proprietor and employee were, in fact, public servants, as they were performing a "public duty" under the lease agreement with FCI. He emphasized that the Act intended to combat bribery and corruption more effectively and that a narrow interpretation of "public servant" would undermine this purpose.

Justice Nargal emphasized the need for a broad interpretation of the term "public servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Act to effectively combat corruption. The Court noted that the Act aimed to address not only bribery but also corruption in various forms, and therefore, the definition of "public servant" should not be restricted by narrow interpretations.

Spotlighting sections Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Act, Justice Nargal explained that to designate a person as a ‘Public Servant’ and to thereby hold such person liable under the Act, the thrust lies upon the nature of duty i.e. public duty carried out by such person and not the position held by him or her.

Elucidating as to how both the firm's proprietor and the employee fell within the ambit of "public servant" as defined in the Act, the court emphasized that the nature of the duty performed was crucial, rather than the position held by individuals. It further pointed to the lease agreement and model agreement between the firm and FCI which required the firm's proprietor to perform a public duty, which was in the interest of the public at large, particularly concerning the Public Distribution System and national food security.

“It must be taken into consideration that thrust of Section 2(c) is not on the position held by the individual; rather, the public duty performed by him/her as the legislative intention was not to provide an exhaustive list of authorities which are covered, but a general definition of “public servant”. In other words, this section also applies to individuals who are not conventionally considered as public servants. Accordingly, this Court is required to adopt a purposive approach which would give the effect to the intention of legislature”, Justice Nargal reasoned.

Additionally, the Court observed that the allegations in the FIR, which involved the demand for a bribe and subsequent trap proceedings, met the requirements of Sections 7 and 7A of the Act. These sections apply not only to public servants but also to private individuals involved in corrupt practices, the bench underscored.

“..while Section 7 and 7A are independent to each other but Section 7A has been inserted with sole object to reach aiders and abettors of the offence. It, therefore, extends all the persons whether they are or are not public servant. However, where a person accepting bribe is a public servant, the Section for charging him is Section 7 of PC Act 1988, and for a private person, Section 7A would be applicable. Therefore, Section 7A gives wider power to the authorities to initiate action against a private individual, which means involvement of public servant is not a condition precedent for registering of FIR”, the court maintained.

Emphasising the importance of a zero-tolerance approach to corruption and the need for transparency in decision-making processes, the court concluded that the FIR was valid, and the investigation should proceed in accordance with the law.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 255

Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri,Sr. Advocate with Mr. Salih Pirzada, Advocate.

Counsel For Respondents: Mr. Mohsin Qadri,Sr.AAG with Mr. Furqan Yaqub Sofi, GA.

Case Title: Sheikh Abdul Majeed Vs UT Of J&K

Case No: CRM(M) No. 464/2023 CrlM No. 1105/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment