The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the applicant's status as a public servant under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which influenced the court's decision to dismiss the application for discharge.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ram Naresh Yadav, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri Anurag Verma, the learned Additional Government Advocate-I and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has challenged validity of the order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, P. C. Act, Court No.6, Lucknow rejecting the application for discharge filed by the applicant in relation to Crime No.686 of 2018 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 408, 120B IPC, Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow.

3. On 12.11.2018, an Inspector of U.P. Vigilance Establishment had filed an FIR against 3 named persons, including the applicant, describing him as ‘Lalta Prasad Dwivedi, the then Assistant Commissioner Housing and Assistant Registrar’ and some unnamed persons in illegal occupation of land, stating that by means of a Government Order dated 03.08.2015, the Vigilance, Establishment had been directed to conduct an open enquiry against co-accused L.K. Asthana, a former office bearer of Vidya Mandir Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’), and the report dated 09.05.2017 submitted in furtherance of open enquiry indicates that the accused persons managed illegal possession on 4.5 Bigha land, which had been freed by the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court. The applicant, who was the then Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Registrar, U. P. Awas Evas Vikas Parishad and Administrator/Chairman the Society, was found guilty of commission of the aforesaid offences along with two other co-accused persons, L. K. Asthana and Mahadeo Singh.

4. After investigation, a charge-sheet dated 20.12.2022 was submitted against co-accused persons, L. K. Asthana and Mahadeo Singh for commission of offences under Sections 408 and 120B IPC and another charge-sheet dated 27.02.2023 has been submitted against the applicant, for commission of the offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge-sheet itself mentions that Principal Secretary, Cooperative, Government of U.P. has granted sanction for prosecution of the applicant.

5. The applicant had previously filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., being Application U/S 482 No.5552 of 2023, seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and the proceedings on the ground that he is not a public servant and this contention was rejected by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 31.05.2023.

6. Although the applicant has challenged the validity of the order dated 06.11.2023 rejecting his application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., a copy of the discharge application filed by the applicant has not been annexed with the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Court cannot examine the pleas taken in the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the Court has to examine the validity of the order dated 06.11.2023 treating the narration made in the order regarding the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to be correct.

7. The impugned order states that the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was filed on the ground that the investigating officer has wrongly described the applicant to be Administrator of the Society whereas the administration was being done by a 3 members committee. It was further stated in the application that the applicant was an office bearer of a private society and was not a public servant and, therefore, he should be discharged for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

8. The trial court rejected the application by holding that there was sufficient material available on record for trial of the applicant for commission of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

9. In para 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it has categorically been stated that the applicant was neither a Government servant n