2020 (4) TMI 882 - SC - Indian Laws

Trustee of deemed university qualifies as public servant under Section 2(c)(xi) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988

The State of Gujarat Versus Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah

The SC held that a trustee of a deemed university constitutes a public servant under Section 2(c)(xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court ... As per N. V. RAMANA Deemed University - public servant - contention of the respondent is that the term “University” needs to be read in accordance with the UGC Act, wherein only those Universities covered under the Section 2(f) of the UGC Act are covered under the PC Act - whether the respondent who is allegedly a trustee in the Sumandeep Charitable Trust which established and sponsors the said University (Deemed to be University) is a 'public servant’ covered under Section 2(c) of the PC Act? - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of Section 2(c) of the PC Act, it is observed that the emphasis is not on the position held by an individual, rather, it is on the public duty performed by him/her. In this regard, the legislative intention was to not provide an exhaustive list of authorities which are covered, rather a general definition of ‘public servant’ is provided thereunder. This provides an important internal evidence as to the definition of the term “University”.On a perusal of Section 2(c) of the PC Act, we may observe that the emphasis is not on the position held by an individual, rather, it is on the public duty performed by him/her. In this regard, the legislative intention was to not provide an exhaustive list of authorities which are covered, rather a general definition of ‘public servant’ is provided thereunder. This provides an important internal evidence as to the definition of the term “University”. The object of the PC Act was not only to prevent the social evil of bribery and corruption, but also to make the same applicable to individuals who might conventionally not be considered public servants. The purpose under the PC Act was to shift focus from those who are traditionally called public officials, to those individuals who perform public duties. Keeping the same in mind, as rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellantState, it cannot be stated that a “Deemed University” and the officials therein, perform any less or any different a public duty, than those performed by a University simpliciter, and the officials therein - the High Court was incorrect in holding that a “Deemed University” is excluded from the ambit of the term “University” under Section 2(c)(xi) of the PC Act. Whether the appellant-trustee in the Board of ‘Deemed to be University’ is a ‘public servant’ covered under Section 2(c) of the PC Act? - HELD THAT:- This Court in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BANK SECURITIES AND FRAUD CELL AND ORS. VERSUS RAMESH GELLI AND ORS. [2016 (2) TMI 1296 - SUPREME COURT], dealt with the question as to whether Chairman, Directors and officers of a private bank before its amalgamation with a public sector bank, can be classified as public servants for prosecution under the PC Act. This case is not an appropriate one to have exercised the power under Section 227 to discharge the accused-respondent herein, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it should be noted that this judgment is rendered for a limited purpose, and we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The trial court is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously. As per Ajay Rastogi, J. Whether the respondent-trustee in the board of ‘deemed to be university’ is a ‘public servant’ covered under Section 2(c) (xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? - HELD THAT:- By introduction of Section 2(c )(xi) of the Act, 1988, any person or member of any governing body with whatever designation called of any university has been included in the definition of “public servant” and any university includes all universities regardless of the fact whether it has been established under the statute or declared deemed to be university under Section 3 of the UGC Act. It is true that the distinction has been pointed out by the Parliament under the provisions of the UGC Act for consideration and determination of standards of education in universities, but in my view, no distinction could be carved out between the university and deemed to be university so far it relates to the term ‘public servant’ as defined under Section 2(c ) (xi) of the Act 1988 - In construing the definition of ‘public servant’ in clause (c ) of Section 2 of the Act 1988, the Court is required to adopt an approach as would give effect to the intention of the legislature. The legislature has, intentionally, while extensively defining the term ‘public servant’ in clause (c ) of Section 2 of the Act and clause (xi) in particular has specifically intended to explore the word ‘any’ which includes all persons who are directly or indirectly actively participating in managing the affairs of any university in any manner or the form. In this context, the legislature has taken note of ‘any’ person or member of “any” governing body by whatever designation called of “any” university to be termed as ‘public servant’ for the purposes of invoking the provisions of Act 1988. In the present case, the question for consideration is the term ‘any’ university in the broader spectrum to curb corruption in the educational institutions as referred to under Section 2(c )(xi) of Act 1988 and the legislature in its wisdom has referred to the word “any university” which clearly mandates the university referred to and controlled by its statutory mechanism referred to under Section 2(f) and deemed to be university under Section 3 of the UGC Act. Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the respondent-trustee is a 'public servant' covered under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act)Rs.2. Whether the accused-respondent can be discharged under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)Rs.Issue 1: Whether the respondent-trustee is a 'public servant' covered under Section 2(c) of the PC ActRs.The first question revolves around whether the respondent, a trustee of the Sumandeep Charitable Trust, which sponsors a deemed University, qualifies as a 'public servant' under Section 2(c) of the PC Act. The legal interpretation of the term 'University' as used in Section 2(c)(xi) of the PC Act was scrutinized. The PC Act defines a 'public servant' to include 'any person who is a Vice-Chancellor or member of any governing body, professor, reader, lecturer or any other teacher or employee, by whatever designation called, of any University and any person whose services have been availed of by a University or any other public authority in connection with holding or conducting examinations.'The court noted that the term 'University' is not explicitly defined within the PC Act, prompting an interpretative necessity. The legislative intent behind the PC Act was to curb corruption broadly, including within educational institutions. The court emphasized that a broad interpretation of the term 'public servant' is necessary to fulfill the objectives of the PC Act. The court rejected the argument that the term 'University' should be narrowly construed to exclude deemed universities. It was held that deemed universities perform public duties similar to traditional universities and should be included within the term 'University' under the PC Act.External aids of interpretation, including definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary and Law Lexicon, supported the broader interpretation. The court concluded that the term 'University' in the PC Act includes deemed universities, thus bringing the respondent-trustee within the ambit of 'public servant.'Issue 2: Whether the accused-respondent can be discharged under Section 227 of CrPCRs.The second issue concerned whether the accused-respondent could be discharged under Section 227 of the CrPC, which allows for discharge if the judge considers there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court emphasized that at the stage of Section 227, the judge must sift the evidence to determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding, without delving into a detailed analysis of the evidence.In this case, the evidence included statements from the Vice-Chancellor and other witnesses indicating that the respondent was the final authority regarding admissions and fee collections. The charge sheet alleged that the respondent demanded an additional payment for allowing a student to fill up examination forms, supported by the recovery of numerous cheques during a raid. The court found that these allegations created a grave suspicion warranting a trial.The court cited precedents emphasizing that where materials disclose grave suspicion against the accused, the court should frame a charge and proceed with the trial. It was held that the High Court erred in discharging the respondent under Section 227 CrPC, as the evidence presented justified proceeding to trial.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, concluding that the respondent-trustee is a 'public servant' under the PC Act and that there was sufficient ground to proceed with the trial, thus disallowing the discharge under Section 227 CrPC. The case was remanded for trial, emphasizing that the judgment was limited to the preliminary issue and did not comment on the merits of the case.