IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant revision application has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with A.C.B. Case No. 09 of 2022 and Vigilance Case No.09 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the prayer made by the petitioner for his discharge for the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, has been rejected.

Factual Matrix of the case:

2. The factual matrix leading to filing of the instant case in brief reads as under:

One Niranjan Singh has alleged that on 05.08.2022 he has given two applications before the Circle Officer, Chainpur for uploading Khata no. 24, plot nos. 34, 43, 45, 42, 46, 52 and 40 measuring an area of 3.11/4 Decimals and Khata no. 1, 13, 18, 59, 65, 58, 106, 182, plot nos. 440, 445, 502, 328, 439 on Jharseva site but the same had not been updated online.

It is further alleged that when the same had not been updated, then the informant met with one Kanhai Ram, Karmchari of Basaria Kala and asked him as to why his work for updating the same has not been done till date, upon which he asked him to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- as bribe for his work, but the informant was not ready to pay the bribe amount to him and therefore, he filed a complaint in A.C.B. office. On the complainant made by the informant, the said matter was verified by one Navin Prasad, Police Inspector, ACB, Palamau on 24.08.2022 at the private office of the accused Kanhai Ram running near Forest Department Office, Chainpur where the informant met the accused Kanhai Ram and again, he demanded money for his work. On this, the informant requested to reduce the bribe amount but the accused told him that he has to pay the bribe amount if he wants his work to be completed. Thereafter, the informant told the verifying officer on 12.09.2022 that the bribe amount which was demanded by him has been arranged and accordingly the verifying officer submitted his report on 12.09.2022.

Thereafter, the case has been lodged against the accused Kanhai Ram and after following the procedure, the raiding team of A.C.B. caught Kanhai Ram and the present petitioner red handed from Mata Vaishnavi Complex, Chainpur and tainted money of Rs.10,000/- (20 notes of the denomination of Rs.500/-) was recovered from the petitioner as because the co-accused Kanhai Ram has handed over the said bribe amount to the petitioner after counting the same and accordingly the seizure list was prepared. Thereafter the F.I.R. has been lodged.

Argument of the learned counsel for the parties

3. Learned senior counsel has submitted that for invoking any provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the essential condition is that there has to be "public servant", against whom the Act would be applied. Since the petitioner is neither a public servant nor would fall under any of the category of discharging any functions as public authority, accordingly, under no circumstances, the petitioner can be brought within the ambit of the Act of 1988.

4. He further submits that the respondent by registering the FIR under Section 7(a) of the Act against the private individual (petitioner herein) has therefore, not only abused the process of law but has also resulted in depriving the liberty of the petitioner which otherwise could not have been curtailed except in accordance with law. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent has misused its authority by registering the impugned FIR and consequently, the arrest of the petitioner is sheer abuse of process of law, whereby the liberty of the petitioner has been deprived.

5. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the ground that the cognizance taken under Section 7(a) of the PC Act will not be maintainable since herein the petitioner is not a public servant. It has been submitted that