The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that anyone appointed in a position or functioning in a position where he performs public duty can be charged under under Prevention of Corruption Act.

The single-judge bench of Justice observed that expansive meaning has been rendered to the phrase 'public servant' under amendment to the Act in 1988, which broadened the horizons of the definition of public servant.

In the present petition the legal question for consideration of the court was whether the petitioner being a General Manager of Nandini Milk Products, which is a unit of KMF would become a ‘public servant’ within the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, for the ACB to register a crime.

The Court after deliberating upon definition of 'public servant', noted:

"What runs through the stream of definitions of public servant is, he should be appointed in a position or should be functioning in a position where he performs public duty. Expansive meaning is rendered to the phrase ‘public servant’ under the Act on its amendment in the year 1988, which broadened the horizons of the definition of public servant, than what it was in the original enactment of 1947."

Remarking that interpretation of the definition is no longer res integra as post the amendment to the Act in the year 1988, the phrase ‘public servant’ as defined under Section 2(c) fell for interpretation before the Apex Court in the case of GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. P.VENKU REDDY

The Apex Court considered the purport of the amendment to Section 2(c) in the year 1988 and being given a wider meaning than it existed earlier. Section 2(c)(ix) also fell for consideration before the Apex Court to hold that an office bearer of a registered cooperative society in the said case a multi-State cooperative society was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The Apex Court held that even if there is sprinkling aid falling upon the cooperative society, the office bearer of the said society would be a public servant under Section 2(c) of the Act. The Apex Court did not consider the percentage of share holding of the Government, but directs even a sprinkling aid would be sufficient to bring an employee with the definition of ‘public servant’.

Next, the Court added that the horizons which were already broad, are broadened further by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT v.MANSUKHABHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH.

In the present matter noting that the petitioner has amassed wealth beyond the known source of income, the Court opined that it was a case where further proceedings are necessary for the issue to be taken to its logical end.

Stating that the source information report sketches graphic details about such acquisitions by the petitioner, the Court commented.

"It is beyond any cavil of doubt that corruption has percolated to every nook and corner of public life in the country and has become an issue in all walks of life posing a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, corruption emerges in various hues and forms and it is therefore, unfathomable."

In view of the above, the Court thus held that petitioner being a General Manager of Nandini Milk Products, which is a unit of the Federation i.e., KMF undoubtedly performs public duty and the Government obligations of such public duty was transferred to the Federation, when the Federation was created and therefore, the inescapable conclusion would be that the petitioner would be a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act.

"If the petitioner is a public servant under the Act, the registration of crime against him for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Act, cannot be found fault with as it cannot be said, that it is, de hors jurisdiction. No other contention is urged in the case at hand. The solitary contention urged, for the aforesaid reasons, deserves to be repelled and is therefore rejected."

Read Order @LatestLaws.com:

Picture Source :