Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Gujarat against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court which had discharged the respondent, Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, from charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent was a trustee of Sumandeep Charitable Trust, which established and sponsored Sumandeep Vidyapeeth, a deemed university. An FIR was lodged alleging that the respondent demanded a bribe of Rs. 20 lakhs from the complainant to allow her daughter to take the final MBBS examination. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 7, 8, 10, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the PC Act read with Section 109 IPC. The trial court rejected the respondent's discharge application, but the High Court allowed it, holding that the respondent was not a public servant under Section 2(c)(xi) of the PC Act as the institution was a 'deemed to be university' and not a 'University' as defined. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the term 'University' in Section 2(c)(xi) includes deemed universities declared under the UGC Act. The court emphasized that the PC Act is a social welfare legislation aimed at eradicating corruption and must be interpreted purposively. It noted that the respondent, as a trustee of the trust that runs the deemed university, was a member of the governing body and thus fell within the definition of public servant. The court also held that the High Court erred in discharging the respondent at the stage of framing of charges, as there was sufficient material to proceed. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act - Public Servant - Definition - Section 2(c)(xi) PC Act - The term 'University' in Section 2(c)(xi) includes a 'Deemed to be University' declared under the UGC Act, 1956. The court held that the definition of public servant under the PC Act is broad and purposive, and a deemed university performs public functions of imparting education, thus its governing body members are covered. (Paras 18-30) B) Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Section 227 CrPC - Standard for discharge is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The High Court erred in discharging the respondent at the stage of framing of charges, as the allegations and material on record prima facie showed the respondent's involvement in corruption. (Paras 31-35) C) Interpretation of Statutes - Penal Statutes - Strict Construction - While penal statutes are strictly construed, the Prevention of Corruption Act being a social welfare legislation aimed at curbing corruption must be interpreted purposively to advance its object. The court clarified that strict interpretation does not mean literal interpretation in all cases. (Paras 22-24)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a trustee of a trust that establishes and sponsors a 'Deemed to be University' is a 'public servant' under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and whether the accused can be discharged under Section 227 of CrPC.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 02.02.2018 is set aside. The order of the District and Sessions Court dated 29.11.2017 rejecting the discharge application is restored. The trial court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Strict interpretation of penal statutes
- Purposive interpretation of welfare legislation
- Definition of public servant under Section 2(c)(xi) PC Act includes deemed universities
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC requires no prima facie case
