The definition of 'public servant' under the P.C.Act includes individuals performing public duties, which encompasses roles funded by government resources.

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

1. Heard learned counsel Shri Rahul Dhande for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.S.S.Dhote for the State.

2. The matter is already admitted on 14.8.2017 and interim stay is operating in favour of the applicant by order dated 6.4.2017.

3. By this revision, the applicant has challenged order dated 20.2.2017 passed below Exh.17 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur (learned Judge of the trial court) in Special ACB Case No.21/2015 whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging him of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the P.C.Act) has been rejected.

4. Facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell are as follows:

The applicant has been appointed on Ad-hoc basis in Study Centre in the name of “Dnyandeep Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Chandrapur” (DSPM). The DSPM also runs “Arts; Commerce and, Science College” along with the said Study Centre. The said DSPM is defined under Section 2 (18) of The Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University Act, 1989 (YCMOU Act). The applicant was appointed as an Assistant Coordinator of the Study Centre in the year 2013-2014 by the Executive Committee Meeting of the said DSPM. A student, who sought admission in B.Com. Part-1, the course conducted by Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University (YCMOU), is to deposit additional amount of Rs.500/- towards fees. However, the applicant demanded from him Rs.1000/- and passed a receipt of Rs.500/-. Thus, the applicant demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.500/- for admitting the said student. As the said student, who is complainant, was not willing to pay the said amount, he approached the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau at Chandrapur (the bureau) and lodged a complaint. The applicant was caught in trap by the bureau. After the successful trap and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the applicant.

5. During pendency of the trial, the applicant has filed an application under Section 227 of the Code for discharging him on ground that he is not a “public servant” within meaning of Section 2(c)(iii) of the P.C.Act and, therefore, offences alleged are not attracted against him. As the offence is not made out against him, in view of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C.Act, he be discharged from charges levelled against him.

6. The said application is strongly opposed by the State on ground that the applicant was discharging public duty and, therefore, he is a “public servant” within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act. He was also taking remuneration for the services held by him and after the trap, he was dismissed from services and, therefore, he falls under definition of “public servant. In view of that, the application for discharge is rightly rejected by learned Judge of the trial court.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not discharging his duties as a “public servant”. He has also not received any remuneration from the Government. He was also not appointed by the YCMOU. The requirement of Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act is not fulfilled and, therefore, he is not a “public servant” within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act as he was not holding the office as “public servant” and, therefore, the offence as alleged cannot be attracted against him. As no prima facie material is on record to frame the charge against