IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
Pramod Sharma S/o Shri Chatur Bhuj Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 974 of 2025
Decided On : 07-04-2025
(A) Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 - Section 7A - Criminal proceedings quashed against a businessman accused of corruption without evidence of public servant involvement - The petitioner, not being a public servant, cannot be prosecuted under Section 7A of the P.C. Act of 2018. (Paras 1, 13, 19)
(B) Legal principles - A private individual cannot be prosecuted under the P.C. Act without the involvement of a public servant as a co-accused. The prosecution must establish a nexus between the accused and the public servant's duty. (Paras 10, 14)
(C) Findings of Court - The court found no evidence linking the petitioner to any public servant's misconduct, thus rendering the charges unsustainable. (Paras 11, 18)
(D) Issues - Whether a private person can be prosecuted under Section 7A of the P.C. Act without a public servant's involvement. (Paras 10, 13) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The court held that the absence of a public servant's involvement in the alleged corruption negates the applicability of Section 7A, leading to the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner. (Paras 13, 19) (F) Result - Criminal proceedings against the petitioner quashed.
ORDER :
1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS with a prayer to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case bearing CIS No. 12/2020 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma pending before the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Cases) No.4, Jaipur arising out of an FIR No. 99/2020 registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra A.C.B. Jaipur, District Jaipur for offences punishable under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short “the P.C. Act of 2018”) alongwith charge sheet No.127/2020 and so also the order of cognizance dated 04.09.202 (Annex.-3).
2. Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner is not a public servant and is a businessman and he has nothing to do with the allegations made against him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has induced one Chandraprakash, the then S.H.O. Police Station Udyog Nagar Police Station, Bharatpur for getting work done of the complainant by the then D.I.G. Police- Lakshman Gaur. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as regards the public servant, i.e., the then DIG Police, Bharatpur no involvement of him has been found in the matter and the police after completion of the investigation has filed closure report in respect of the D.I.G. Police- Lakshman Gaur before the competent Court on 09.01.2024. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the charge sheet submitted against the petitioner, the police has specifically stated that there is no evidence on record as regards the connection of the accused-petitioner with the then D.I.G. Police, Bharatpur or any kind of conversation in between them. Counsel also submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner who is not a public servant, alone cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 7A of the P.C. Act of 2018.
4. In support of his submissions, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Bharat Lal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 8406/2022 decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 04.08.2023.
(ii) Babji Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2018 (17) SCC 732 decided by Hon’ble the Apex Court on 09.08.2018.
(iii) Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal MMO Nos. 625 and 626 of 2023 decided by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla on 25.06.2024.
(iv) Shivasharanappa Vs. The State in Criminal Appeal No. 614/1997 decided by the High Court of Karnataka on 09.11.2001.
(v) Amara Kirshna Mohan Rao and Ors. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No. 901/2008 decided by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on 23.09.2011.
5. Learned Public prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioner and submits that the police after making a thorough investigation in the matter concluded the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the accused-petitioner for offences punishable under Section 7A of the P.C. Act of 2018. Learned Public Prosecutor has also placed before this Court the status report of the investigation dated 04.04.2025 qua the public servant, i.e., the then D.I.G. Police, Bharatpur- Shri Lakshman Gaur and others where it has been specifically stated that after making investigation no any kind of involvement of Shri Lakshman Gaur has been found to be involved in the matter and the closure report has already been submitted by the Competent Court on09.01.2024.
6. Heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the material available on record.
7. The brief facts of the case are that a written complaint was submitted by the complainant-Chandraprakash on 23.06.2020 stating that he is employed as Station House Officer, Udyog Nagar Police Station Bharatpur and o
A private individual cannot be prosecuted under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act without the involvement of a public servant as a co-accused.
The court affirmed that individuals executing public duties for public entities can be classified as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, broadening the scope of accountability and....
The Prevention of Corruption Act encompasses both public servants and private individuals in corruption-related offences, allowing for prosecution of those who aid or abet corrupt practices.
The court established that a demand for a bribe must be directly related to the performance of public duty for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act to be applicable.
Charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act require a pending official duty and a clear demand for gratification, which were not present in this case.
Point of law :Prevention of corruption -Good laws alone would be not sufficient to make our country corruption free, hut there has to be effective enforcement of the same and efforts should be toward....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential under the Prevention of Corruption Act; absence of such evidence warrants quashing of FIR.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.