PC Act can be invoked against person discharging ‘public duty’ by virtue of office

Srinagar, Nov 4: The Supreme Court has upheld J&K High Court’s verdict wherein the court had ruled that offences under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act could be invoked not only against a public servant but also against a person, who by virtue of his office is discharging “public duty”.

“We do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this petition,” a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi said while dismissing a Special Leave Petition against the High Court judgment.

One of the two petitioners before the High Court, Tajamul Hussain Shah had approached the apex court challenging the judgment dated September 25, 2023, passed by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal.

Before the High Court, the petitioners were seeking to scrap FIR No 16/2023 dated August 18, 2023, registered against them with Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Srinagar under Section 7 and 7A of the PC Act 1988.

The petitioners had sought to quash the FIR primarily on the ground that it had been registered without jurisdiction.

As per the plea before the High Court, Sheikh Abdul Majeed, the petitioner, was the sole proprietor of the proprietorship concern under the name and style ‘Sheikh Suppliers and Contractors’ located at Chandpora, Budgam, and the firm was registered with the Jammu and Kashmir Works Department.

As such, Sheikh was a private individual and was not a ‘public servant’ as provided under Section 2(c) of the Act.

Shah was Sheikh’s employee and worked as an office boy in the firm and as such he also did not fall within the definition of ‘public servant’ as prescribed under Section 2(c) of the act.

To run and operate his business, Sheikh constructed a godown over his proprietary land situated at Chandpora, Budgam in 2012, and the godown was taken over by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) in 2013 under an agreement (lease) entered into by and between him and the FCI.

According to him, this agreement was in his capacity as a private individual.

Consequently, in terms of the agreement, Sheikh became the lessor of the godown and the corporation became the lessee, and accordingly, the godown became operational.

On August 18, 2023, the officials of the corporation entered the premises (godown) based on some complaint made by one Altaf Hamza Mir, who approached the Police Station ACB, Srinagar, with a written complaint wherein he had stated that he was a driver by profession and on the directions of the owner of the vehicle reached FCI Godown, Chandpora, Budgam with a load of rice of FCI and the available FCI staff was requested to get the vehicle unloaded.

He was “told to meet Sheikh, the owner of the godown, and weigher, Shah, to pay them the bribe of Rs 3500 for getting the FCI foodgrains unloaded from the vehicle”.

Based on the complaint, FIR No 16/2023 under Sections 7 and 7A of the PC Act came to be registered with Police Station ACB Srinagar.

There were allegations against Sheikh of demanding a bribe and consequently trap proceedings were initiated, and accordingly, the tainted money was recovered based on trap proceedings.

In their plea, the petitioners contended that the entire proceedings from lodgement of complaint, initiation of trap proceedings, and registration of FIR were beyond any authority and jurisdiction of the ACB.

The Issue before the court was whether the petitioners fell within the ambit of ‘public servant’ as defined under Section 2(c) of the act and whether they were performing ‘public duty’ as defined under Section 2(b) of the definition clause of the act.

“This court is of the view that both the petitioners fall within the ambit of ‘public servant’ as defined under Section 2(c) of the act,” the court said.