Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1881 OF 2013

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 7511 OF 2013)

MANISH TRIVEDI

… APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN

…RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

The petitioner’s challenge to his prosecution for

an offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has

been turned down by the trial court and the said

order has been affirmed by the High Court by its

order dated 1^st of March, 2013 passed in Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition No. 1686 of 2009. It is

against this order that the petitioner has preferred

this special leave petition.

Delay condoned.

Page 2

JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise

to the present appeal are that the appellant at the

relevant time was a Councillor elected to the

Municipal Council, Banswara and a Member of the

Municipal Board. According to the prosecution, one

Prabhu Lal Mochi lodged a report in the Anti-

Corruption Bureau, inter alia, alleging that he had a

shoe repair shop near the gate of Forest Department,

Banswara and the employees of the Municipal Council

had seized his cabin in the year 2000 rendering him

unemployed. According to the allegation, he applied

for the allotment of a kiosk before the Municipal

Council but did not succeed. On enquiry the

informant was told that it is the appellant who can

get the allotment made in his favour and accordingly

he contacted the appellant. It is alleged that the

appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for getting

the allotment done in his name and ultimately it was

agreed that initially the informant would pay Rs.

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

5,000/- to the appellant and the rest amount

thereafter.

On the basis of the aforesaid

information, according to the prosecution, a trap was

laid and the appellant was caught red-handed and a

sum of Rs. 5,000/- was recovered from him.

After usual investigation, charge-sheet was

submitted against the appellant and he was put on

trial. During the trial evidence of one of the

witnesses was recorded and thereafter, the appellant

filed an application before the trial court for

dropping the proceeding, inter alia, contending that

he being a Councillor does not come within the

definition of ‘public servant’ and as such, he cannot

be put on trial for the offence under Sections 7,

13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court rejected the

said prayer vide its order dated 13^th of October,

2009. The appellant assailed this order before the

High Court in an application filed under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court

by the impugned judgment has rejected his prayer.

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

It is against this order that the appellant is

before us with the leave of the court.

We have heard Mr. Yashank Adhiyaru, Senior

Counsel for the appellant while respondent is

represented by Mr. Milind Kumar.

Mr. Adhiyaru submits that a Municipal Councillor

is not a public servant and, therefore, his

prosecution for the offence alleged is bad in law.

According to him, for prosecuting an accused for

offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

the accused charged must be a public servant and the

appellant not being a public servant cannot be

prosecuted under the said Act. Further, for a person

to have the status of a public servant he must be

appointed by the Government and must be getting pay

or salary from the Government. Not only this, to be

a public servant, such a person has to discharge his

duties in accordance with the rules and regulations

made by the Government. According to him, the

appel