Public duty under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires a legal obligation; cricket association office bearers were not public servants.

Office bearers of a private cricket association were not public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 merely because they were involved in purchasing land for a proposed stadium. The Court noted that a public duty requires an obligation in which the State, the public, or the community at large has a legal interest, and that a public servant under Section 2(c)(viii) must hold an office authorising or requiring performance of such duty. As no statutory duty or governmental direction was shown, the land purchase was only an antecedent step to an intended project and not the discharge of a public duty. The FIR, vigilance enquiry, and related proceedings were therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the office bearers of the Kerala Cricket Association, while purchasing land for construction of a cricket stadium, were performing a public duty and could be treated as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, so as to sustain the FIR and vigilance proceedings.

Analysis: The relevant definitions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 require a public duty to be one in which the State, the public, or the community at large has an interest, and a public servant under clause (viii) of Section 2(c) must hold an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform such duty. The body in question was treated as a private association, not as a State instrumentality, and its cricket-related activities, though public in impact, were not shown to arise from any positive legal obligation or Governmental direction. The mere purchase of land for a proposed stadium was only an antecedent step in an intended project and did not, by itself, amount to discharge of a statutory public duty. The earlier order treating office bearers as public servants was held not to furnish binding precedent in view of the later legal position and the non-speaking dismissal of the special leave petition.

Conclusion: The office bearers were not public servants for the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the complaint and proceedings based on the impugned FIR and vigilance enquiry were not maintainable.

---