SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(SC) 11

2002(1) Supreme 55
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Dilawar Balu Kurane -Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1452 of 1998)
Decided on 8-1-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Nikhil Sakhardande, Arun Pednekar, Ms. Meenakshi Sakhardande, Advocate for Vishwajit Singh, Advocate/Advocates.
For the Respondent : H.W. Dhabe, Senior Advocate, S.S. Shinde, Advocate for S. V. Deshpande, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Although appellant shall be deemed to be a public servant under Section 73(4) of Shivaji University Act, 1974 but as no prima facie case for charges under Sections 161/477A IPC and Sections 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 has been made against appellant, consequently the criminal proceeding against the appellant is quashed.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 21-Public Servant-Shivaji University Act, 1974-Section 73(4)-All salaried employees of university to be public servants for the purpose of criminal law-Appellant a lecturer of a private college affiliated to Shivaji University-University inviting him to evaluate B.Com. Accountancy Paper-Allegations of receiving illegal gratification to pass some candidate-Whether appellant was a public servant at the relevant time for invoking Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947?-He will not be a public servant u/s. 21 IPC but will be deemed to be a public servant under Section 73(4) of the Shivaji University Act, 1974.

       Held : In the case in hand, the appellant was appointed by the University for a specified work, namely to evaluate answer scripts and therefore he was a public servant at the relevant time under sub-section (4) of Section 73 of the Act. (Para 11)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 161/ 477A and Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-A lecturer of Private College was appointed as examiner by University and it was alleged that he took Rs. 400/- from a candidate in evaluation for showing favour-High Court finding prosecution case rests upon flimsy foundation and chances of conviction are weak-Application u/s. 227 Cr.P.C. that no prima facie case is made out against appellant-Whether be accepted? (Yes)-Result-Appeal allowed.

       Held : We have perused the records and we agree with the above views expressed by the High Court. We find that in the alleged trap no police agency was involved; the FIR was lodged after seven days; no incriminating articles were found in the possession of the accused and statements of witnesses were recorded by police after ten months of the occurrence. We are, therefore, of the opinion that not to speak of grave suspicion against the accused, in fact prosecution has not been able to throw any suspicion. We, therefore, hold that no prima facie case was made against the appellant. We find merit in the present appeal and accordingly it is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and consequently the criminal proceeding against the appellant is quashed. (Paras 14 & 15)

       

JUDGMENT

Phukan, J.-Leave is granted.

2. The appellant at the relevant time was a Lecturer in Y.B. Chavan College, Kolhapur, State of Maharashtra, a college run by the Municipal Corporation and affiliated to the Shivaji University, Kolhapur. The appellant received a letter from the University inviting him to evaluate the papers in Accountancy (theory) at the B.Com. IInd Year examination, which was accepted. On 1st May, 1986, one Ashok Salokhe, who also appeared in the said examination, approached the appellant and expressed his inability to clear the above paper which was to be examined by the appellant. According to the prosecution, the appellant demanded Rs.400/- from him and on the next day, around 4.30 p.m., the appellant accepted Rs.400/- from him and thereafter scored out the previous marks given on the answer script and increased the number to enable the said student to get through the paper in question. It was the further case of the prosecution that private individuals tried to lay trap on 2nd May to prove acceptance of the amount by the appellant. The Registrar of the University on getting information of the alleged occurrence took away all the answer scripts from the appellant. After one week, i.e. on 9th May, 1986, the Deputy Registrar of the University filed a First Information Report before the police against the appellant. On the next day, the police searched the house of the appellant in his absence but nothing incriminating was found. Ten months after the above alleged occurrence, statements of Salokhe and one Sawant were recorded by police and thereafter charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 161/477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and process was issued to the appellant calling upon him to stand trial for the alleged offences. The appellant approached the High Court of Judicature of Bombay by filing a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charges which was disposed of with the observation that prima facie the prosecution case seemed to be resting on flimsy foundation . However, instead of quashing the charges directed the appellant to approach the trial court. Accordingly, an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before the Special Judge, which was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed a Revision Petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment.

3. Two points need our consideration, namely, (1) whether the appellant was a public servant at the relevant time for invoking Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and (2) whether the charges against the appellant on the very face of it are redolent of improbability and absurdity and there is not even remote chance of the charges ultimately culminating into conviction.

4. We may state here that Special Judge while considering the application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal procedure did not at all consider the application on merit and mainly proceeded to decide whether the appellant was a public servant. The High Court without analysing the material on records rejected the contention on the ground that certainly a grave suspicion is created by the appellant committing offences other than that under Section 477A . The Special Judge held that the appellant was a public servant but the High Court left this question open.

5. Admittedly, the appellant being a lecturer of a private college would not come within the definition of public servant as contained in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. There is a special provision in the Shivaji University Act, 1974, namely, sub-section (4) of Section 73, which is extracted below:

"Conditions : Section 73:

of Services (1) ...............

(2) ...............

(3) ...............

(4) All salaried officers and employees of the U
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top