Deeming provision and grave suspicion test led to public servant status and discharge at charge stage.

A deeming provision in Section 73(4) of the Shivaji University Act was given its plain meaning, and an examiner appointed by the University for specified work and paid remuneration from University funds was treated as a public servant for criminal law purposes. At the charge stage under Section 227 CrPC, the court reiterated that only grave suspicion can justify trial; on the materials, there was no trap, the FIR was delayed, no incriminating article was recovered, and witness statements came much later. The materials were held insufficient to sustain charges, and the prosecution could not proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an examiner appointed by the University for a specified work and receiving remuneration under Section 73(4) of the Shivaji University Act, 1974 is deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of the corruption charge; (ii) Whether, on the materials placed, a prima facie case existed for framing charges under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether an examiner appointed by the University for a specified work and receiving remuneration under Section 73(4) of the Shivaji University Act, 1974 is deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of the corruption charge.

Analysis: The deeming clause in Section 73(4) was read according to its plain language. It extends to salaried officers and employees of the University, persons appointed for specified periods or specified work, and persons receiving remuneration, including fees or other payments from the University Fund. The marginal note was held not to control the clear words of the provision. On that construction, a lecturer appointed by the University to evaluate answer scripts fell within the statutory definition for criminal law purposes.

Conclusion: The appellant was held to be a public servant under Section 73(4) of the Shivaji University Act, 1974.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the materials placed, a prima facie case existed for framing charges under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The settled test under Section 227 permits the Judge to sift and weigh material only to determine whether grave suspicion exists. The materials in this case were found deficient: no police trap was involved, the FIR was delayed, no incriminating article was recovered, and witness statements were recorded much later. The case was found to lack even the threshold suspicion required to justify a charge, and the earlier refusal to discharge was held unsustainable.

Conclusion: No prima facie case was made out against the appellant and the charges could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceeding was held to be unsustainable and the appellant obtained relief from prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: A clear deeming provision must be given its plain effect, and at the stage of charge the court must discharge the accused where the materials do not rise to grave suspicion and do not justify proceeding to trial.

---