IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.
S. Surjeet Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K & Ors. - Respondent
561-A Cr.P.C. No. 45/2007
Decided On : 22 December, 2008
Corruption - Examination Malpractice - Prevention of Corruption Act 2006, Prevention of Unfair Means Act 1987 - Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, read with under section 3/5 Prevention of Unfair Means Act 1987 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 and the Prevention of Unfair Means Act 1987, particularly focusing on the definition of public servant, criminal misconduct, and the requirement of previous sanction for prosecution. The court emphasized the importance of preventing examination malpractice and the need for exemplary punishment for offenders.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an invigilator accused of demanding a bribe from a student during an examination. The accused sought quashment of the charge against him, arguing lack of sanction, his status as a public servant, and the competence of the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused, as an invigilator engaged in conducting the examination, was deemed to be a public servant under the Prevention of Unfair Means Act 1987 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 2006. The court also held that no previous sanction was required for prosecution as the accused had ceased to be a public servant at the time of filing the charge.
Issues: The issues included the status of the accused as a public servant, the requirement of previous sanction for prosecution, and the competence of the trial court to take cognizance of the offence under the Prevention of Unfair Means Act 1987.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 and the Prevention of Unfair Means Act 1987 to establish the accused's status as a public servant and the absence of the need for previous sanction for prosecution. The court also clarified the competence of the trial court to take cognizance of the offence under the Prevention of Unfair Means Act 1987.
Final Decision: The petition seeking quashment of the charge against the accused was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the law.
2. On the prosecution allegations, the case in hand throws-up one such glaring example. Here on the one hand is a child who seems to have sacrificed everything for attaining excellence in the field of academics, whereas on the other hand, a person, who is charged and entrusted for conducting examination in most fair and honest manner has as per case of the prosecution ripped to shreds the faith and confidence reposed in him. Going by the prosecution case, which of course is subject to proof at trial, that too beyond all shadow of doubt, the future of not only a child, not only a family, but of nation is put to jeopardy by blind greed of an individual. If the offence is proved at the trial the guilty deserves to given exemplary punishment so as to make the message loud and clear that there cannot be any compromise about the progress of future generations in different walks of life. Where shall the money power push our younger generation in such circumstances, is a question which begs answer. The right of one meritorious, poor and hapless student is passed on to other undeserving student, such incidents if not nipped in the bud, will produce a nation of corrupt block-heads. The frustrated youth may be thus lured into unwilling trap of crime, and what not. The greed of one person will thus play havoc with body politic of whole nation and will end up into what English jurist and parliamentarian Edmund Burkee in 1777 has said and I quote;
"In a people generally corrupt liberty does not long last".
3. The prosecution case as revealed in the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. is that on 14th November, 2005 a complaint was received in Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Kashmir from one Irshad Ahmad Kar alleging therein that one S. Surjit Singh, invigilator of examination centre no. 862 located in Woodland High School, Sonawar Srinagar, where the complainants daughter Ms. Tabinda Irshada was taking 12th class examination, demanded Rs. 3000/-from the daughter of the complainant for rendering her illegal services in the said examination. The accused had further threatened Ms. Tabinda Irshad that in case amount demanded is not paid then any damage can be caused to her answer sheets.
4. Ms. Tabinda Irshad, informed her father, the complainant about what had happened in the school on 13th of November, 2005 when Ms. Tabinda Irshad had reported in the centre for taking her 12th class examination. Ms. Tabinda Irshad told her father, complainant, that as she has worked very hard and believe in leading honest life, she would not give any money to the accused. The complainant, who in his complaint has stated that he believes in honest dealings in life, made a complaint to Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, who in turn undertook pre-trap proceedings and the accused was allegedly caught red handed, and demanded amount of Rs 3000/- was recovered from him.
5. The accused was working as Supervisor/Inspector as per prosecution case. It is further revealed that accused was working as Supervisor/Inspector of the centre where daughter of the complainant was taking 12th class examination. After completion of the investigation, prosecution filed report under section 173 in the court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Kashmir in case FIR 33 of 2005. The trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the prosecution and learn
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.