IMPORTANT POINT
The petitioners are not classified as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as they did not receive governmental financial assistance.

ORDER :

1. These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases have been filed by accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.3/2024 of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Palakkad and FIR in V.C.No.3/2024/PKD of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Palakkad, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(a) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 2018’ hereinafter) as well as under Sections 406 , 408, 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC ’ hereinafter), by the petitioners.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the legal provisions and the decisions cited.

3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that none of the offences under the PC Act, 2018 would attract the present case, since none of the petitioners herein are public servants within the meaning of Section 2(c)(i) to (xii) of the PC Act, 2018.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners stressed the definition of ‘public servant’ under Section 2(c)(xii) which provides that any person who is an office-bearer or an employee of an educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution, in whatever manner established, receiving or having received any financial assistance from the Central Government or any State Government, or local or other public authority. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the instant case, Sree Ayyappan Kavu Temple, Cherupulassery is under the Malabar Devaswom Board governed by the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 and Rules (for short, ‘the Act, 1951’ hereinafter) thereof and therefore, the administration of the temple is under the control of the Commissioner and any discrepancies or malpractices, in any form, can vehemently addressed by the Commissioner and the Commissioner has power to deal with the situation. It is also pointed out that the Hereditary Trustee, the Melsanthi and the other petitioners who are arrayed as accused being the Managing Trustee, the Non-Hereditary Trustee and the Head Clerk also do not come within the purview of the definition ‘public servant’ under Section 2(c) of the provisions of the PC Act, 2018. The learned counsel pointed out Section 45 of the Act, 1951 to emphasis his argument regarding the powers of the Commissioner and pointed out that the Commissioner has wide power to address illegalities, if any, by appropriate means. Section 45 of the Act, 1951 reads as under:

45. Power to suspend, remove or dismiss trustees - (1) The Deputy Commissioner in the case of any religious institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction, and the Commissioner in the case of any other religious institution, may suspend, remove or dismiss any hereditary or non-hereditary trustee or trustees thereof-

(a) for persistent default in the submission of budgets, accounts, reports or returns, or (b) for wilful disobedience of any lawful order issued under the provisions of this Act by the State Government, the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner, or (c) for any malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of trust or neglect of duty in respect of the trust, or (d) for any misappropriation of, or improper dealing with, the properties of the institution, or (e) for unsoundness of mind or other mental or physical defect or infirmity which unfits him for discharging the functions of the trustee.

(2)