Professional fees for private medical practice are not corruption or unlawful trade absent illegal gratification or misuse of office.

Receipt by a government doctor of professional fees for private practice, without any allegation of illegal gratification, corrupt demand, abuse of office, or other criminal conduct, does not satisfy the ingredients of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act; the conduct may amount only to service misconduct and invite departmental action. Private medical practice by a doctor is also not "trade" in the criminal-law sense for Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, absent a legally prohibited trading activity or misuse of office. The FIR was therefore unsustainable on the facts alleged, and the proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a government doctor's receipt of professional fee for private practice, in alleged breach of departmental instructions, constitutes an offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (ii) Whether such private practice amounts to a public servant unlawfully engaging in trade so as to attract Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (i): Whether a government doctor's receipt of professional fee for private practice, in alleged breach of departmental instructions, constitutes an offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The governing test is whether the amount received is illegal gratification for doing or forbearing an official act. A fee charged for medical examination and treatment is professional remuneration and, by itself, is not gratification. Where the allegations disclose only private practice contrary to government instructions, without any averment of bribe, corrupt demand, abuse of office, or other criminal conduct, the ingredients of corruption are not made out. Such conduct may amount to breach of service discipline and attract departmental action, but not criminal liability under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Conclusion: The allegation does not disclose an offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Issue (ii): Whether such private practice amounts to a public servant unlawfully engaging in trade so as to attract Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The statutory offence requires engagement in trade by a public servant who is legally bound not to do so. Treatment of patients by a doctor in the course of professional duty is not trade in the criminal-law sense. Mere private medical practice, absent allegations of trading activity of another character or criminal misuse of office, does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 168. If the conduct only violates service instructions, the proper remedy lies in departmental proceedings.

Conclusion: The allegation does not disclose an offence under Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code.

Final Conclusion: The FIR could not be sustained on the facts alleged, since the conduct complained of amounted at most to misconduct under service rules and not to criminal offences under the penal provisions invoked; the proceedings were quashed and the appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Receipt of professional fee by a government doctor for private practice, without allegations of illegal gratification, corrupt motive, abuse of office, or criminal conduct, does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act or Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, though it may amount to service misconduct.

---