Whether court should decide in case of prevention of corruption Act case at initial stage that accused is not public servant?

As we notice, the High Court has really been swayed by the concept of Article 12 of the Constitution, the provisions contained in the 1949 Act and in a mercurial manner taking note of the fact that the multi-state society is not controlled or aided by the Government has arrived at the conclusion. In our considered opinion, even any grant or any aid at the time of establishment of the society or in any construction or in any structural concept or any aspect would be an aid. We are inclined to think so as the term 'aid' has not been defined. A sprinkle of aid to the society will also bring an employee within the definition of 'public servant'. The concept in entirety has to be understood in the backdrop of corruption. In Shri Ram Singh (supra), this Court had to say this:

Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time, is sure to maliganise (sic) the polity of the country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence--shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society.

 We share the said perception, and reiterate with agony. The ingemination has to be realized with sanctity. Therefore, we are of the convinced opinion that it was entirely unnecessary on the part of the High Court to enter into elaborate deliberation to arrive at the conclusion that the Respondent was not a public servant. Regard being had to the facts of the case, we think it would be apposite that it is left to be dealt with in the course of trial whether the society concerned has ever been granted any kind of aid or not.

Citation: AIR2016SC1377, 2016ALLMR(Cri)1351,(2016)4 SCC417,2016 CRLJ2031

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1329 of 2009

Decided On: 15.12.2015

Appellants: State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Brijlal Sadasukh Modani

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Dipak Misra and A.K. Goel, JJ.

Print Page