JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge holding that the respondent cannot be proceeded against in terms of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the `Act').

3. Factual position in a nutshell needs to be noted. Respondent-Nirmal Kaur was running a coaching centre. On the accusation of commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act investigation was undertaken, charges were framed by learned Sessions Judge Ferozepur, under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act as well as the offences punishable under IPC. A petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code') was filed inter alia taking the stand that since the respondent was not a public servant, there was no question of framing charges in terms of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The trial court relied on clauses (viii) (xi) and (xii) of Sub-clause 2(c) of the Act to hold that the charges were framed legally. The Hig