2020 Supreme(SC) 348

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V.Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
State of Gujarat – APPELLANT
Versus
Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.989 OF 2018
Decided On : 27-04-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) No distinction could be carved out between university and deemed to be university so far it relates to term ‘public servant’ as defined under Section 2(c) (xi) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2) Definition of Public Servant covers any person whose services have been availed of by a University, or any other public authority in connection with holding or conducting examinations.
(3) Corruption cannot be annihilated but strategically be dwindled by reducing monopoly and enabling transparency in decision making.
(4) Strict interpretation does not necessarily mean literal interpretation in all cases, rather interpretation should have regards to genuine import of words, taken in their usual sense.

Headnote:

Per N. V. Ramana, J. (For himself and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 2(c) – Public servant – Any person, who is a Vice-Chancellor, any member of any governing body, professor, reader, lecturer, any other teacher or employee, by whatever designation called, of any University, is said to be a public servant – Definition covers any person whose services have been availed of by a University, or any other public authority in connection with holding or conducting examinations – Emphasis is not on position held by an individual, rather, it is on public duty performed by him – Corrupt societies often spring from examples set at the highest levels of government, but small-scale corruption can be equally insidious – Object of PC Act was not only to prevent social evil of bribery and corruption, but also to make the same applicable to individuals who might conventionally not be considered public servants – Purpose under PC Act was to shift focus from those who are traditionally called public officials, to those individuals who perform public duties – As such, it cannot be stated that a “Deemed University” and officials therein, perform any less or any different a public duty, than those performed by a University simpliciter, and officials therein. (Paras 20, 22, 34 and 44)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 2(c), 7, 8, 10 and 13 (1)(b) and 13(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 109 – University Grants Commission Act, 1956 – Section 3 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 227 – Corruption – Discharge of accused – Corruption in India has become an issue which affects all walks of life – Although anti-corruption laws are fairly stringent in India, percolation and enforcement of the same are sometimes criticized as being ineffective – Due to this, constitutional aspirations of economic and social justice are sacrificed on a daily basis – An institution which is “deemed to be a University” under University Grants Commission Act, 1956 plays same role in society as a “University” – These institutions have common public duty of granting degrees which are ultimately qualifications recognized in society – As such, an institution which is “deemed to be University”, such as institution in present case, is included within ambit of term “University” used under Act – Technical definitions under one statute should not be imported to another statute which is not in pari materia with the first – UGC Act and PC Act are enactments which are completely distinct in their purpose, operation and object – PC Act is an enactment meant to curb social evil of corruption in country – As such, extension of technical definitions used under one Act to other might not be appropriate, as the two Acts are not in pari materia with one another. (Paras 25, 27 and 31)

(C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 2(c), 7, 8, 10 and 13 (1)(b) and 13(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 109 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 227 – Corruption – Discharge of accused – Charge sheet specifically discloses that respondent allegedly was collecting certain extra amount over the prescribed fees on pretext of allowing students to fill up their examination forms – Paying respondent alleged amount was a condition precedent before filling up forms, to appear for examinations – Fact that there were a large number of cheques which were found during raid is more than sufficient to establish a grave suspicion as to commission of alleged offence – This case is not an appropriate one to have exercised power under Section 227 to discharge accused-respondent – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 52, 53, 56 and 57)

(D) Interpretation of Statute – Rules of interpretation – Golden rule of interpretation for any penal legislation is to interpret the same strictly, unless any constitutional considerations are involved, and in cases of ambiguity, benefit of the same should enure in favour of accused – Strict interpretation does not necessarily mean literal interpretation in all cases, rather interpretation should have regards to genuine import of words, taken in their usual sense. (Para 24)

Per Ajay Rastogi, J. (Assenting View)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 2(c) – University Grants Commission Act, 1956 – Section 3 – Corruption by public servants – Zero tolerance towards corruption should be topnotch priority for ensuring system based and policy driven, transparent and responsive governance – Corruption cannot be annihilated but strategically be dwindled by reducing monopoly and enabling transparency in decision making – However, fortification of social and moral fabric must be an integral component of long-term policy for nation building to accomplish corruption free society – Simplest definition of corruption is, any act or omission by a public servant for securing pecuniary or other material advantage directly or indirectly for himself, his family or friends – By introduction of Section 2(c )(xi) of Act, 1988, any person or member of any governing body with whatever designation called of any university has been included in definition of “public servant” and any university includes all universities regardless of the fact whether it has been established under the statute or declared deemed to be university under Section 3 of UGC Act – No distinction could be carved out between university and deemed to be university so far it relates to term ‘public servant’ as defined under Section 2(c) (xi) of Act 1988. (Paras 3, 6 and 11)

Facts of the Case:

Present Appeal is from the impugned judgment and final order dated 02.02.2018, passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application (against Order passed by Subordinate Court) No. 1188 of 2017. There is a common perception that corruption in India has spread to all corners of public life and is currently choking the constitutional aspirations enshrined in the Preamble. In this context, this case revolves around requiring this Court to facilitate making India corruption free. Question that emerged for consideration in the present appeal is whether the respondent-trustee in board of ‘deemed to be university’ is a ‘public servant’ covered under Section 2(c)(xi) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Findings of the Court:

It is true that the distinction has been pointed out by the Parliament under the provisions of the UGC Act for consideration and determination of standards of education in universities, but in my view, no distinction could be carved out between the university and deemed to be university so far it relates to the term ‘public servant’ as defined under Section 2(c) (xi) of the Act 1988.

Result : Appeal allowed.