IMPORTANT POINT
The court determined that the accused, as office-bearers of a Sabha receiving government funding, are public servants under the P.C. Act, thus subject to prosecution for corruption.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

The 3^rd accused in C.C. No.43/2014 on the of the Court of the Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam, has filed this criminal revision petition under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , challenging the order dated 10.03.2025, whereby the plea of discharge raised by the 3^rd accused was negatived by the special court and consequently charge also framed against the 3^rd accused.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Central Bureau of Investigation, in detail. Perused the order under challenge as well as the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short] and the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha Act, 1964 .

3. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, accused Nos.1, 3 and 4, who are the Treasurer, President and Secretary respectively of the Dakshin Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha (Kerala), Chittoor road, Ernakulam and the second accused (a private person), in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy hatched between them, the first accused has received illegal gratification of Rs.4,00,000/- from one Preethi Anilkumar (CW.97-Approver) on 27.05.2010, another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from one Judy Joseph (CW.16-Approver) on 06.06.2012 and Rs.1,00,000/- from one Joseph Karrot, the father of aforesaid Judy Joseph on the promise of appointing aforesaid Preethi Anilkumar and Judy Joseph as Chemistry and English teachers respectively in the Mahatma Gandhi Public School, Chottanikkara run by the Dakshin Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha (Kerala), Chittoor road, Emakulam. It is the case of the prosecution that the second accused instigated the aforesaid persons to pay the said amount to the first accused. It is also the case of the prosecution that, accused Nos. 3 and 4 were also aware of the said collection of the amount by the first accused and they were also parties to the criminal conspiracy. Subsequently, an interview has been conducted for the selection of teachers and it is alleged that accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 falsely created score sheets of the Interview Board so as to appoint the aforesaid Preethi Anilkumar and Judy Joseph as teachers and thereby, accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 dishonestly induced the Dakshin Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha (Kerala), Chittoor road, Ernakulam to appoint aforesaid Preethi Anilkumar and Judy Joseph as teachers in the Mahatma Gandhi Public School, Chottanikkara run by the Dakshin Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha. Due to the aforesaid conduct of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4, the meritorious candidates lost selection and non-meritorious candidates like Preethi Anilkumar and Judy Joseph got selection and appointment. The accused persons also committed forgery in respect of Mark Sheets and Minutes Book, relating to the Sub Committee and Executive Committee meeting and caused disappearance of the original score sheets of Interview Board prepared by Subject Experts. They used forged documents as genuine documents, with the knowledge that those documents are forged documents, for the purpose of cheating. On this premise, the accused alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 477A, 471, 417, 420 and 201 r/w 120B of the IPC and also under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of the P.C. Act.

4. While challenging the order negativing the plea of discharge at the instance of the petitioner, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that, the petitioner, who is the President of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Kerala), is not a public servant and the Sabha also is not a public institution. Therefore, the revision petitioner would not come under the purview of public servant as defined under Section 2(c)(xii) of the P.C. Act. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, if accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are held as public servants under the purview of the P.C. Act, sanction to prosecute all o