Individual Performing 'Public Duty' Will Come Under Prevention Of Corruption Act Though Not A 'Public Servant' : Karnataka High Court

G.Krishnegowda, working as a project manager at Nirmithi Kendra, Chikkaballapura, had approached the court seeking to quash the FIR registered against him by the Anti Corruption Bureau, (ACB), Chickkaballapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'P.C.Act'),

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while dismissing the petition last month said,

"It is now well settled that even if an individual is not a public servant, but if he is discharging "public duty" by virtue of his office, he is answerable to the State and public and he comes within the ambit of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, even if the Nirmithi Kendra is not receiving or has not recovered any fund from the Central or State Government, but if the employees of the Kendra by virtue of his office is discharging public duty, then he is answerable to the State, Community and the public, and can be prosecuted for the offences under the P.C.Act."

The court in its judgement noted that :

"Corruption is considered the single biggest problem faced by our country. It undermines democracy and rule of law and violates human rights. The corrupt take advantage of the loopholes in the legal system and that is why it has become a low risk but high-profit business. Corruption to do the wrong thing is one thing, but when corruption reaches the stage of getting right things done which a citizen is legally entitled for, then the very moral fabric of the society is destroyed."

It also observed, "Good laws alone would not be sufficient to make our country corruption free, but there has to be effective enforcement of the same and efforts should be made towards making the concerned accountable. Demanding a bribe is a crime so is offering a bribe."

Petitioners Submission:

It was contended that respondent-authority has no power to register a case against the petitioner under the provisions of the P.C.Act, for the simple reason that the petitioner is not a public servant. Further, the petitioner is an employee of Nirmithi Kendra which is a society and the said society has not been receiving any funds either from the State government or the Central Government.

Reliance was placed on the judgment of the high court in the case of Gopinath Alias Gopinathsa Vs The Superintendent Of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bijapur & Another - 2014(4) Kccr 3668, has held that the employee of the Nirmithi Kendra cannot be termed as a public servant, and therefore, had quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner therein under the P.C.Act by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police.

Prosecution Opposition To The Plea

Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent submitted that the judgment of this Court in Gopinath's case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, the definition of the word 'public servant' as found in the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and P.C.Act are different. The Nirmithi Kendra, Chikkaballapura, has received grants/funds from the State Government as well as from the Central Government and in Gopinath's case (supra), there is a finding to the effect that the Nirmithi Kendra therein was not receiving any funds.

It was said "Since the Nirmithi Kendra, Chikkaballapura, has received funds from the State and the Central Government, it cannot be said that it is not a public authority. The petitioner is discharging a public duty, and therefore, he comes within the ambit of the P.C.Act."

The prosecution relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Of Gujarat Vs Manusukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah- 2020 SCC OnLine SC 412, in which it was held that even persons who are discharging public duties are answerable to the State and the public, and are covered under the ambit of the P.C.Act.

Court Findings.

The court referred to the word 'public servant' as defined under Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and words 'public duty' and 'public servant' are defined in Sections 2(b) & 2(c), of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It then opined ,

"From the reading of the definition of the word 'public servant' as found in the P.C.Act, it is very clear that a person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform any public duty, and any person or employee of any institution if it has been receiving or if it has received any financial assistance from the State or Central Government, shall be considered as a public servant. The explanation to Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act would further go to show that such a person may be appointed by the Government or not. Therefore, a public servant need not be a Government/civil servant, but a Government/civil servant is always a public servant."

Relying on the judgment of the apex court in Manusukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah's case, the court said,

"Having regard to the fact that the Nirmithi Kendra in which the petitioner is employed has been receiving funds from the State and the Central Government and taking into consideration the definition of the word 'public servant' as found in the P.C.Act, it cannot be but said that the petitioner is a public servant. Even if a person is not a public servant, but by virtue of his office if he is discharging public duty, then he is covered under the ambit of the P.C.Act."

It went on to observe "Corruption in our country is a growing menace and P.C.Act being welfare legislation is required to be interpreted keeping in mind the object and 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 is 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 court also noted that judgment of this Court in Gopinath's case relied on by the accused was rendered having regard to the fact that the Nirmithi Kendra of which the petitioner therein was employed had not received any funds from the State or the Central Government or any other public authority.

However, in the case on hand, the records would reveal that the Nirmithi Kendra in which the petitioner is employed has been receiving funds from the Central as well as the State Government. Therefore, the judgment of this Court in Gopinath's case will not be applicable to the facts of this case.

Case Title: G.Krishnegowda and The State of Karnataka.

Case no: CRL.P.No.2801/2021

Date of Order: 15th Day of July 2021

Appearance:

Advocate Papegowda.B for petitioner.

Advocate Manmohan. P.N for respondent.