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

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 emphasized that the definition focuses on public duty performed rather than position held, and deemed universities perform identical public functions as regular universities. The legislative intent was to include all universities regardless of establishment method. The HC's exclusion of deemed universities from the PC Act's ambit was incorrect. The discharge order under Section 227 was inappropriate given the case circumstances. 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.

---