Umed Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2025 Latest Caselaw 16943 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Umed Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 December, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

 [2025:RJ-JD:51984]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8775/2025

 Umed Kumar S/o Subhkaran Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
 Ward No 24 Ludiwas Rajgarh District Churu Rajasthan At Present
 Working As Clerk At Lords Internaitonal College Sadulpur District
 Churu Rajasthan (Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
 1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
 2.       Jeevanram Bidasra S/o Kumbhram Jaat, Aged About 42
          Years, R/o Dhani Bhompura Tehsil Bidasar District Churu
          Rajasthan
                                                                  ----Respondents


 For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Kaushal Gautam
 For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Ramesh Devasi, PP
                                 Ms. Sudha Palawat, A.S.P. (ACB),
                                 Hanumangarh.



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order Reportable-

Reserved on: 25/11/2025

Pronounced on: 16/12/2025

1. By way of the present criminal miscellaneous petition filed

under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023 (BNSS), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.

0034/2025 registered at Police Station ACB, Churu/CPS Jaipur for

the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the P.C. Act").

2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the criminal miscellaneous

petition are that the son of the complainant, namely Rakesh, was

pursuing his B.Ed. course from Lords International T.T. College,

Shadulpur, District Churu. The complainant's son allegedly did not

have adequate attendance to appear in the first-year B.Ed.

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 06:47:28 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51984] (2 of 10) [CRLMP-8775/2025]

examinations (Practical and Internship). It is alleged that the

Principal of Lords International T.T. College demanded illegal

gratification in the form of a "donation" to "manage" the

examination form and fulfill other related requirements for

enabling the complainant's son to appear in the examination. In

these circumstances, the complainant approached officials of the

Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and submitted an audio recording of

the conversation between him and the Principal confirming the

demand.

3. The ACB officials verified the complaint, prepared a trap, and

provided currency notes amounting to ₹20,000/- treated with

phenolphthalein powder to the complainant. As per the trap plan,

on 14.02.2025, the complainant met the petitioner, who was

working as a Clerk at Lords International T.T. College, Shadulpur,

and handed over the said ₹20,000/- of bribe money which the

petitioner accepted. Immediately upon receiving the signal from

the complainant, the ACB officials reached on the spot and

apprehended the petitioner. When the petitioner's hands were

dipped in the solution, it turned pink, indicating contact with the

phenolphthalein-smeared notes. The currency notes totaling

₹20,000/- were recovered from the back-side left pocket of his

jeans. The trap proceedings were video graphed, relevant

documents were seized, and a case under Section 7 of the P.C. Act

was registered against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that

the petitioner is innocent. It was argued that the petitioner, being

a clerk in a private, self-financed institution, is not a "public

servant" and does not come within the meaning of Section 2(c) of

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 06:47:28 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51984] (3 of 10) [CRLMP-8775/2025]

the P.C. Act. Learned counsel further contended that the material

available on record clearly establishes that, as per the NCTE

Performance Appraisal Report, Lords International T.T. College is

an autonomous (self-financed) institution affiliated with Maharaja

Ganga Singh University, Bikaner with an intake capacity of 100

students.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that immediately upon

apprehension, the petitioner categorically informed ACB officials

that the amount recovered from him was not bribe money but

repayment of a personal loan of ₹20,000/- out of a total of

₹25,000/- allegedly advanced by him to the complainant on

12.02.2025. On this basis, learned counsel argued that mere

recovery of currency notes, without any proof of demand from

petitioner and acceptance of bribe, does not constitute an offence

under the P.C. Act.

6. On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to quash

and set aside the impugned FIR.

7. Learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:

• Babji v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2018 (17) SCC 732; • Bharat Lal Saini v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 8406/2022, decided on 04.08.2023; • Vinod Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal MMO Nos. 625 & 626 of 2023, decided on 25.06.2024; • Shivasharanappa v. State, Criminal Appeal No. 614/1997 decided on 09.11.2001 (Karnataka High Court); • Amara Krishna Mohan Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No. 901/2008, decided on 23.09.2011 (Andhra Pradesh High Court).

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that

Lords International T.T. College, Shadulpur conducts a professional

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 06:47:28 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51984] (4 of 10) [CRLMP-8775/2025]

B.Ed. course recognized by the NCTE and is affiliated to Maharaja

Ganga Singh University, Bikaner. The B.Ed. course are governed

by statutory guidelines and regulations issued by the NCTE and

the affiliating University. The petitioner, being a Clerk, was directly

connected with maintaining attendance registers and forwarding

examination forms of the students, and thus had the ability to

influence or manipulate student attendance. Learned counsel

submitted that the functions discharged by the petitioner comes

within the ambit of "public duty" in which the community has a

vital interest. Therefore, he falls within the definition of "public

servant" under Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act, particularly clause

(viii) read with Explanation 1.

9. Learned counsel further contended that the mere fact that the

institution is self-financed does not exclude its employees from the

sweep of the P.C. Act. Learned counsel submitted that in any

event, whether or not the petitioner is a "public servant" is a

mixed question of fact and law, which cannot be concluded

conclusively at the threshold, especially when the FIR, complaint,

verification proceedings, trap proceedings and recovery of

phenolphthalein-tinted notes disclose specific allegations of

demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner.

These proceedings therefore, prima facie constitute offence under

P.C. Act which justify investigation and trial in the matter.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

11. Before proceeding further, Sections 2(b), 2(c), and 7 of the

P.C. Act are reproduced below for ready reference:-

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 06:47:28 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51984] (5 of 10) [CRLMP-8775/2025]

"2(b) 'public duty' means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest;

Explanation. --In this clause "State" includes a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);

(c) "public servant" means--

(i) any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty;

(ii) any person in the service or pay of a local authority;

(iii) any person in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);

(iv) any Judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions;

(v) any person authorised by a court of justice to perform any duty, in connection with the administration of justice, including a liquidator, receiver or commissioner appointed by such court;

(vi) any arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by a court of justice or by a competent public authority;

(vii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election;

(viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty;

(ix) any person who is the president, secretary or other office- bearer of a registered co-operative society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having received any financial aid from the Central Government or a State Government or from any corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or any authority or body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);

(x) any person who is a chairman, member or employee of any Service Commission or Board, by whatever name called, or a member of any selection committee appointed by such Commission or Board for the conduct of any examination or making any selection on behalf of such Commission or Board;

(xi) 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;

(xii) any person who is an office-bearer or an employee of an educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution, in whatever manner established, receiving or having received

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 06:47:28 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51984] (6 of 10) [CRLMP-8775/2025]

any financial assistance from the Central Government or any State Government, or local or other public authority."

"7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed. -- Any public servant who, --

(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or

(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or

(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation 1. For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper. Explanation 2. For the purpose of this section, --

(i) the expressions "obtain" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain" shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;

(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party."

12. The Apex Court in the case of 'Manish Trivedi v. State of

Rajasthan', (2014) 14 SCC 420, has elucidated the ambit of

the expression "public servant," emphasizing that the focus is on

the duties performed rather than the nature of the institution..

"19. The present Act (the 1988 Act) envisages widening of the scope of the definition of the expression "public servant". It was brought in force to purify public administration. The legislature has used a comprehensive definition of "public servant" to achieve the purpose of punishing and curbing corruption among public servants. Hence, it would be inappropriate to limit the contents of the definition Clause by a construction which would be against the spirit of the statute. Bearing in mind this principle, when we consider the case of the Appellant, we have no doubt that he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. Clause (viii) of Section 2(c) of the present Act makes any person, who holds

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 06:47:28 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51984] (7 of 10) [CRLMP-8775/2025]

an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty, to be a public servant. The word "office" is of indefinite connotation and, in the present context, it would mean a position or place to which certain duties are attached and has an existence which is independent of the persons who fill it."

The Supreme Court in the case of 'State of Gujarat v.

Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah', (2020) 20 SCC 360 has

observed: -

"22. There is no gainsaying that nations are built upon trust. It is inevitable that in a democracy one needs to rely on those with power and influence and to trust them of being transparent and fair. There is no doubt that any action which is driven by the self-interest of these powerful individuals, rather than the public interest, destroys that trust. Where this becomes the norm, democracy, the economy and the Rule of law, all take a beating, ultimately putting the whole nation at risk. Corrupt societies often spring from the examples set at the highest levels of government, but small- scale corruption can be equally insidious. In this regard, the PC Act was formulated to bring about transparency and honesty in public life, as indicated by its objects and reasons. We need to keep the aforesaid legislative intention in mind while interpreting the provisions of the PC Act.

50. Evidently, the language of Section 2(b) of the PC Act indicates that any duty discharged wherein State, the public or community at large has any interest is called a public duty. The first explanation to Section 2 further clarifies that any person who falls in any of the categories stated Under Section 2 is a public servant whether or not appointed by the government. The second explanation further expands the ambit to include every person who de facto discharges the functions of a public servant, and that he should not be prevented from being brought under the ambit of public servant due to any legal infirmities or technicalities.

69. In construing the definition of 'public servant' in Clause

(c) of Section 2 of the Act 1988, the Court is required to adopt an approach as would give effect to the intention of the legislature. The legislature has, intentionally, while extensively defining the term 'public servant' in Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act and Clause (xi) in particular has specifically intended to explore the word 'any' which includes all persons who are directly or indirectly actively participating in managing the affairs of any university in any manner or the form. In this context, the legislature has taken note of 'any' person or member of "any" governing body by whatever designation called of "any" university to be termed as 'public

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 06:47:28 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51984] (8 of 10) [CRLMP-8775/2025]

servant' for the purposes of invoking the provisions of Act 1988."

Recently, in State of Chhattisgarh v. Aman Kumar

Singh, (2023) 6 SCC 559, the Supreme Court has made the

following observations concerning the approach to quashing FIRs

in corruption cases:-

"80. Having regard to what we have observed above in paras 47 to 50 (supra) and to maintain probity in the system of governance as well as to ensure that societal pollutants are weeded out at the earliest, it would be eminently desirable if the High Courts maintain a hands-off approach and not quash a first information report pertaining to "corruption" cases, specially at the stage of investigation, even though certain elements of strong-arm tactics of the ruling dispensation might be discernible. The considerations that could apply to quashing of first information reports pertaining to offences punishable under general penal statutes ex proprio vigore may not be applicable to a PC Act offence. Majorly, the proper course for the High Courts to follow, in cases under the PC Act, would be to permit the investigation to be taken to its logical conclusion and leave the aggrieved party to pursue the remedy made available by law at an appropriate stage. If at all interference in any case is considered necessary, the same should rest on the very special features of the case."

13. In light of the provisions of the P.C. Act and the law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that Section 2(c)

of the P.C. Act provides a wide and expansive definition of "public

servant." The P.C. Act, 1988 was enacted with the avowed object

of strengthening the legal framework against corruption by

substantially widening the scope of the term "public servant." The

term "public duty" has deliberately been defined in broad and

inclusive terms so as to encompass any duty attached to an office

that bears a nexus with public interest. Thus, the discharge of

such public duty by the office-holder is a sine-qua-non for the

application of the definition of "public servant."

The thrust of Section 2(c) is not on the position held by the

individual, but rather on the public duty discharged by him/her. It

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 06:47:28 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51984] (9 of 10) [CRLMP-8775/2025]

embodies a purposive legislative intent, and the Court is required

to adopt an interpretation that furthers this objective.

Section 2(c)(viii) includes within its ambit any person who

holds an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to

perform any public duty. Section 2(b) defines "public duty" as a

duty in the discharge of which the State, the public, or the

community at large has an interest. Explanation 1 further expands

this meaning to include functions discharged for bodies receiving

government aid or performing statutory duties.

14. The material on record indicates that although the petitioner

was employed in a self-financed private B.Ed. college, he prima

facie had access to attendance records and was responsible for

forwarding examination forms to the State University to which

Lords International T.T. College is affiliated. Admission to the B.Ed.

course and eligibility to appear in examinations are governed by

NCTE Regulations and University Regulations. Thus, a student's

eligibility to appear in the B.Ed. examination depends on statutory

academic requirements, and issuance of the attendance certificate

determines the student's right to submit the examination form and

obtain a B.Ed. degree.

15. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court has no hesitation in

concluding that the statutory functions which the petitioner

allegedly sought to violate involve public interest and constitute

"public duty" and, therefore, the post of Clerk held by the

petitioner in the Lords International T.T. College, Shadulpur falls

within the ambit of Section 2(c)(viii) of the P.C. Act. The

contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 06:47:28 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51984] (10 of 10) [CRLMP-8775/2025]

college is self-financed and that the petitioner does not discharge

public duty is hereby rejected.

16. As far as the argument that no offence under Section 7 of

the P.C. Act is made out against the petitioner, it is sufficient to

note that there exists a recorded conversation evidencing demand

of ₹20,000/-. Further, prior to conducting the trap, ACB officials

verified the demand and the pre-treated currency notes were

recovered from the petitioner's pocket. The defence raised by the

petitioner regarding repayment of loan, which was denied by the

complainant, is a matter for trial and cannot be adjudicated at this

stage.

17. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the impugned FIR discloses the commission of an offence

under Section 7 of the P.C. Act against the petitioner, who was

discharging public duties in relation to statutory academic

functions of a recognized professional course, i.e., the B.Ed.

course. Therefore, looking to the nature of the duties performed

by him, he cannot claim immunity from proceedings under the P.C.

Act merely because he is an employee of a self-financed private

institution.

18. Accordingly, no case is made out for quashing the impugned

FIR. The present criminal miscellaneous petition alongwith all

pending applications stand dismissed.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 312-himanshu/-

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 06:47:28 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)