Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Mangesh Prabhakar Rathod, a doctor, was appointed as a psychiatrist on a contractual basis with the District Civil Surgeon's office from 11.9.2014 to 31.3.2015. On 22.7.2015, a complaint was lodged by non-applicant no. 2 alleging that the applicant demanded a bribe of ₹300, later negotiated to ₹200, for issuing a mental certificate. A trap was laid on 29.7.2015, and the applicant was caught accepting the bribe. The applicant filed a discharge application before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Washim, which was rejected on 3.8.2023. He then approached the High Court. The main legal issue was whether the applicant was a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at the time of the alleged offence. The applicant argued that his contractual appointment ended on 31.3.2015, and he was not a public servant on 29.7.2015. The court examined the appointment order and a query report dated 6.8.2015, which confirmed that his services were not continued after 31.3.2015. The court held that since the applicant ceased to be a public servant before the incident, he cannot be prosecuted under the Act. The court allowed the application, set aside the trial court's order, and discharged the applicant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act - Public Servant Status - Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The applicant was appointed as a psychiatrist on contractual basis from 11.9.2014 to 31.3.2015. The alleged bribe demand occurred on 29.7.2015, after the contract expired. The court held that since the applicant ceased to be a public servant before the incident, he cannot be prosecuted under the Act. The discharge application was allowed. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant, whose contractual appointment as a psychiatrist ended on 31.3.2015, can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for an alleged bribe demand on 29.7.2015, given that he was not a public servant on the date of the offence.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application, set aside the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Washim, and discharged the applicant from the case.
Law Points
- Public servant status under Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is determined at the time of offence
- contractual appointment for fixed period does not extend beyond expiry
- discharge is warranted if accused ceases to be public servant before alleged incident.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (09) 225
Criminal Application No. 1296 of 2023
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar for applicant; Mr. H.D. Marathe, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
The State of Maharashtra, Through Anti Corruption Bureau, Washim; Sadanand Gajanan Tayade
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application assailing order rejecting discharge in a corruption case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Remedy Sought
Applicant (original accused) sought discharge from prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Filing Reason
Applicant was caught accepting bribe of ₹200 on 29.7.2015 for issuing a mental certificate, but his contractual appointment as psychiatrist ended on 31.3.2015, so he claimed he was not a public servant at the time of offence.
Previous Decisions
Assistant Sessions Judge, Washim rejected discharge application on 03.08.2023.
Issues
Whether the applicant was a public servant under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the date of the alleged offence (29.7.2015) given his contractual appointment ended on 31.3.2015.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant's counsel argued that the appointment was contractual from 11.9.2014 to 31.3.2015, and after that date, the applicant ceased to be a public servant. The offence occurred on 29.7.2015, after the contract expired, so he cannot be prosecuted under the Act.
Prosecution's arguments are not detailed in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
A person who ceases to be a public servant before the commission of the alleged offence cannot be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as the definition of public servant under Section 2(c) requires the status to exist at the time of the offence.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present application, the applicant, who is original accused, is assailing order dated 03.08.2023, passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Washim, rejecting his application for discharge.
If the said appointment order is perused, it would reveal that the appointment of the applicant was on contractual basis from 11.9.2014 till 31.3.2015 on the post of Psychiatric.
According to Mr. Sirpurkar, since the offence in question is committed on 29.7.2015, he cannot be held liable since his services had already came to an end on 31.3.2015.
Procedural History
On 22.7.2015, complaint lodged; trap laid on 29.7.2015; charge-sheet filed; applicant filed discharge application before Assistant Sessions Judge, Washim, which was rejected on 03.08.2023; applicant filed Criminal Application No. 1296 of 2023 before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was allowed on 23.09.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 2(c)
