https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447174 An insolvency professional was held not to fall within the definition of "public servant" under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court treated the professional's role under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as facilitative and administrative, not adjudicatory or public in the statutory sense, and held that mere performance of duties with a public element does not attract the corruption statute. It further applied strict construction of penal law and the rule against casus omissus, noting that the Code expressly includes only specified Board officials while separately protecting insolvency professionals acting in good faith. The FIR and remand order were quashed. en-us Mon, 18 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Dec 2023 06:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447174 An insolvency professional was held not to fall within the definition of "public servant" under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court treated the professional's role under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as facilitative and administrative, not adjudicatory or public in the statutory sense, and held that mere performance of duties with a public element does not attract the corruption statute. It further applied strict construction of penal law and the rule against casus omissus, noting that the Code expressly includes only specified Board officials while separately protecting insolvency professionals acting in good faith. The FIR and remand order were quashed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 18 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447174