The court held that individuals managing private NGOs are not considered public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, thus the complaint was found unmaintainable without necessary sanction.

Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the complainant against the order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1988 , (for short, ‘the Act, 1988’) Surguja at Ambikapur in Miscellaneous Case No. unregistered/2015, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Act, 1988 and Sections 409 , 417, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/applicant alleged that the respondents/non- applicants, under the guise of running social service organizations, committed a serious criminal offence by embezzling more than Rs.1,44,20,000/- of government funds allocated under the Setu Curriculum/Alternative and Innovative Education Scheme during the years 2004–05 to 2006–07, by preparing and submitting fake documents. According to the complainant, the said scheme was intended to identify children aged between 6 and 14 years who had either never attended school due to financial constraints or had dropped out, and to run residential centres for them that would provide both education and food. It was alleged that the respondents falsely claimed to have operated such centres, fabricated records of staff and enrolled children, and misappropriated the funds received from the government. The complaint further states that institutions headed by Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 4 were sanctioned substantial amounts by the Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Ambikapur, for operating centres in various development blocks. However, upon verification by concerned Block Education Officers, Gram Panchayats, and even affected teachers, it was revealed that no such centres had actually been run and that the documentation submitted was fabricated. Despite lodging complaints with higher authorities, including the Collector and the Inspector General of Police, no criminal action was initiated against the respondents. Consequently, the complainant was compelled to file the present private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

3. The trial Court, upon consideration of the complaint and the documents available on record held that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are attracted only against “public servants” as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. The respondents, being functionaries of private NGOs/institutions, do not fall within the ambit of “public servant.” Moreover, no sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act had been obtained. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the complaint was not maintainable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. The complaint was, therefore, dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant submits that the trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint at the threshold. He further submits that the allegations made in the complaint clearly disclose the commission of serious offences such as misappropriation, cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, punishable under the Indian Penal Code . He also submits that, since government funds were entrusted to the respondents under a public welfare scheme, the respondents were discharging public duties akin to those of public servants. Therefore, the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ought to be applicable to them. He also submits that the trial Court adopted a hyper-technical approach by rejecting the complaint outright, without even directing an in