Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a Resolution Professional appointed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether the criminal proceeding based on allegations of acceptance of illegal gratification was liable to be quashed.
Analysis: The definition of public servant in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is wide and is not confined to persons in government service. It includes persons authorised to perform public duty, and the determinative factor is the nature of the function discharged. A Resolution Professional is appointed in the insolvency resolution process through the statutory mechanism under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and performs functions that are public in nature, including duties connected with the resolution of corporate insolvency and protection of assets of the corporate debtor. The protections in Sections 232 and 233 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 do not confer immunity for alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, particularly where the allegation is of acceptance of bribe.
Conclusion: A Resolution Professional falls within the meaning of public servant under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the plea for quashing of the criminal proceeding was rejected.