Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court dismissed the revision petition seeking discharge and quashing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, upholding the Special CBI Court’s order framing charges against the petitioner, the President of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Kerala). The Court held that prima facie evidence warranted the petitioner’s trial, noting that the petitioner is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c)(xii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act due to receipt of Central Government funds by the Sabha.
Facts
The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case alleging that the Treasurer, President (petitioner), and Secretary of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Kerala), along with a private individual, entered into a criminal conspiracy to collect bribes in exchange for teacher appointments in Mahatma Gandhi Public School, Chottanikkara. It was alleged that the first accused received Rs. 4 lakh and Rs. 2 lakh as bribes for appointing two teachers, while the petitioner and other office-bearers were aware and facilitated these acts, including conducting manipulated interviews and preparing forged score sheets to enable these appointments.
The petitioner sought discharge, arguing he was not a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that there was no direct evidence of him receiving any bribe.
Issues
Whether the President of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha is a public servant under Section 2(c)(xii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act due to receipt of government grants.
Whether the absence of direct receipt of bribes by the petitioner excludes him from liability under the Prevention of Corruption Act and conspiracy provisions.
Whether the trial court’s order refusing discharge and framing charges was legally sustainable.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that he was not a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act as the Sabha is not a government body, and he was not appointed by the government. It was argued that no bribe was received by him, and the allegations only pertained to the first accused. The petitioner further argued that without direct involvement in receiving illegal gratification, he could not be charged under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Respondent’s Arguments
The CBI argued that the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha is an institution receiving substantial grants from the Central Government, and under Section 2(c)(xii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner qualifies as a public servant. The Sabha had received grants exceeding Rs. 1 crore between 2008 and 2011. It was submitted that the petitioner was part of the conspiracy and had facilitated the illegal appointments by conducting manipulated interviews and forging documents, constituting offences under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed Section 2(c)(xii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which states that office-bearers of institutions receiving government aid are deemed public servants, irrespective of government appointment. The Court examined Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which criminalise obtaining illegal gratification and using one’s position to secure pecuniary advantages through corrupt means, as well as relevant IPC provisions on conspiracy, forgery, and cheating.
It highlighted that the statutory definition of “public servant” under the Prevention of Corruption Act extends to office-bearers of aided institutions and that actual receipt of bribe by the petitioner is not essential if there is prima facie evidence of conspiracy or facilitation.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referenced:
- The Prevention of Corruption Act’s expanded definition of “public servant” to include office-bearers of government-aided institutions.
- General principles on discharge, reiterating that at the stage of framing charges, a detailed examination of evidence is unnecessary if a prima facie case exists.
- The importance of ensuring corruption cases are not prematurely quashed, maintaining the objective of anti-corruption laws.
No specific reported cases were cited, but the judgment applied settled principles regarding the broad interpretation of “public servant” and the limited scope of discharge at the charge-framing stage.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that:
The Sabha had received significant government aid, establishing it as an institution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, making the petitioner a public servant under Section 2(c)(xii).
There was prima facie material indicating the petitioner’s involvement in facilitating illegal appointments through manipulated interviews and forged documents, as part of a conspiracy with other accused.
At the charge-framing stage, the presence of a prima facie case is sufficient, and the petitioner’s contentions regarding the merits of evidence could be addressed during the trial.
The Court stated: “Prima facie materials on record reveal the petitioner’s involvement in the conspiracy warranting a full-fledged trial.”
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court:
Dismissed the revision petition seeking discharge.
Upheld the framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC against the petitioner.
Directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously with the trial, ensuring no delay in the prosecution of the case.
Implications
This judgment:
Reinforces the broad application of the Prevention of Corruption Act to office-bearers of government-aided institutions.
Clarifies that receipt of government grants extends public servant status under anti-corruption laws.
Ensures that corruption and conspiracy cases are fully tried when prima facie evidence exists, discouraging attempts to evade trial at the discharge stage.
Short Notes on Referred Provisions and Application
Section 2(c)(xii), Prevention of Corruption Act: Extends “public servant” status to office-bearers of institutions receiving government aid, applicable here due to grants to the Sabha.
Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act: Pertains to illegal gratification and misuse of position, applied in this case due to allegations of manipulated appointments for bribes.
IPC Sections 120B, 420, 471, etc.: Used for conspiracy, cheating, and forgery charges, applied here due to forged documents and alleged conspiracy in the appointments.
FAQs
1. Does receiving government grants make a private institution’s office-bearer a public servant under anti-corruption laws?
Yes, office-bearers of such institutions are deemed public servants under Section 2(c)(xii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Can a discharge petition succeed if there is prima facie evidence in a corruption case?
No, if prima facie material is present, charges will not be quashed, and a trial will proceed.
3. Is actual receipt of bribe necessary to proceed under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
No, participation in a conspiracy or facilitation of corruption suffices for prosecution.