Case Note & Summary
The judgment involves a criminal application filed by Applicant seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on allegations of bribery for recruitment. The applicant, running a private firm providing security and labour services to government agencies on a contractual basis, argued that he did not qualify as a 'public servant' under the relevant statutes. The court analyzed the definitions under Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 2(28) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, referencing judicial precedents to distinguish contractual employees from public servants. It held that the applicant, being a contractual service provider remunerated by fees, did not meet the criteria for a public servant, leading to the quashing of the FIR. The decision underscores the narrow interpretation of 'public servant' in corruption cases involving private contractors.
Headnote
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, heard a criminal application seeking quashing of FIR No.0003/2025 registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the P.C.Act) -- The applicant, a proprietor of a private security and labour services firm, was accused of demanding and accepting bribes for recruitment -- The court examined whether the applicant fell within the definition of 'public servant' under Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 2(28) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) -- Relying on precedents including Union Public Service Commission vs. Girish Jayantilal Vaghela and ors (2006) 2 SCC 482, the court held that contractual service providers do not qualify as public servants -- The FIR was quashed, emphasizing that the applicant's contractual arrangements with government agencies did not confer public servant status
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the applicant qualifies as a 'public servant' under Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 2(28) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to sustain the FIR
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed the FIR, holding that the applicant is not a public servant under the relevant statutes
