State of Gujarat vs Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: ss.7, 8, 10, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) – Charge sheet against respondent, trustee in a Deemed University specifically disclosing that he allegedly was collecting certain extra amount over the prescribed fees on the pretext of allowing the students to fill up their examination forms – In the complaint, it was alleged that the respondent had demanded Rs.20 Lakhs to be paid to the co-accused, failing which the daughter of the complainant would not be permitted to appear in the examination – Held: Plea taken by respondent was that he was a trustee of the “Sumandeep Charitable Trust” and has no connection with the “Sumandeep University” – Courts below failed to analyze the connection between the trust and the University, as well as the relationship of the respondent with the university – Prima facie, a grave suspicion is made out that the respondent was rendering his service by dealing with the students and the examination aspect of the University – But a detailed appreciation of evidence is called for before one can reach a conclusion as to the exact position of the respondent vis-à-vis the University – Jurisdiction of Court with regards to s.227 is limited and should not be exercised by conducting roving enquiries on the aspect of factual inferences – Trial court directed to proceed with the case expeditiously – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227.

Interpretation of Statutes: Extension of technical definitions used under one statute to the other statute – Held: Technical definitions under one statute should not be imported to another statute which is not in pari materia with the first – The UGC Act and the PC Act are enactments which are completely distinct in their purpose, operation and object – The preamble of the UGC Act states that it is ‘an Act to make provision for the co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities, and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission’ – On the other hand, the PC Act is an enactment meant to curb the social evil of corruption in the country – As such, the extension of technical definitions used under one Act to the other might not be appropriate, as the two Acts are not in pari materia with one another – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – University Grants Commission Act, 1956. University Grants Commission Act, 1956 – Per Ajay Rastogi, J. (Supplementing) – Deemed University – “University” under s.2(f) of the UGC Act is established either in the Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act – At the same time, such of the institutions for higher education other than the University created under the statutory enactment, after being declared by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to be university for the purposes of this Act and all provisions of the UGC Act shall apply to such institutions as if it were a university within the meaning of clause (f) of s.2 of the Act – By introduction of s.2(c)(xi) of the Act, 1988, any person or member of any governing body with whatever designation called of any university has been included in the definition of “public servant” and any university includes all universities regardless of the fact whether it has been established under the statute or declared deemed to be university under s.3 of the UGC Act – No distinction could be carved out between the university and deemed to be university so far it relates to the term ‘public servant’ as defined under s.2(c) (xi) of the Act1988 – In construing the definition of ‘public servant’ in clause (c) of s.2 of the Act 1988, the Court is required to adopt an approach as would give effect to the intention of the legislature – The legislature has, intentionally, while extensively defining the term ‘public servant’ in clause (c) of s.2 of the Act and clause (xi) in particular has specifically intended to explore the word‘any’ which includes all persons who are directly or indirectly actively participating in managing the affairs of any university in any manner or the form – In this context, the legislature has taken note of ‘any’ person or member of “any” governing body by whatever designation called of “any” university to be termed as ‘public servant’ for the purposes of invoking the provisions of Act 1988 –The question for consideration is the term ‘any’ university in the broader spectrum to curb corruption in the educational institutions as referred to under s.2(c)(xi) of Act 1988 and the legislature in its wisdom has referred to the word “any university” which clearly mandates the university referred to and controlled by its statutory mechanism referred to under s.2(f) and deemed to be university under s.3 of the UGC Act – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.2(c)(xi). Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD:

Per N. V. Ramana,

Mohan M. Shantagoudar, J.)

J.

(for

himself

and

for

1. The contention of the respondent is that the term “University” needs to be read in accordance with the UGC Act, wherein only those Universities covered under the Section 2(f) of the UGC Act are covered under the PC Act. Such an interpretation, by importing the technical definition under a different Act may not be feasible herein. It is a settled law that technical definitions under one statute should not be imported to another statute which is not in pari materia with the first. The UGC Act and the PC Act are enactments which are completely distinct in their purpose, operation and object. The preamble of the UGC Act states that it is ‘an Act to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in Universities, and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission’. On the other hand, the PC Act is an enactment meant to curb the social evil of corruption in the country. As such, the extension of technical definitions used under one Act to the other might not be appropriate, as the two Acts are not in pari materia with one another. The purport of UGC Act cannot be borrowed under the PC Act, and that an independent meaning needs to be provided for the term “University” as occurring under the PC Act. [Paras 31, 33][346-A-C; 347-G]

Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation (2014) 9 SCC 657 : [2014] 8 SCR 1021; Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro (2018) 1 SCC 468 : [2017] 13 SCR 921 –

referred to.

2.1 In Section 2(c) of the PC Act, the emphasis is not on the position held by an individual, rather, it is on the public duty performed by him/her. In this regard, the legislative intention was to not provide an exhaustive list of authorities which are covered, rather a general definition of ‘public servant’ is provided thereunder. The object of the PC Act is not only to prevent the social evil of bribery and corruption, but also to make the same applicable to individuals who might conventionally not be considered public servants. The purpose under the PC Act is to shift focus from those who are traditionally called public officials, to those individuals who perform public duties. Keeping the same in mind, it cannot be stated that a “Deemed University” and the officials therein, perform any less or any different a public duty, than those performed by a University simpliciter, and the officials therein. Therefore, the High Court was incorrect in holding that a “Deemed University” is excluded from the ambit of the term “University” under Section 2(c)(xi) of the PC Act. [Paras 34, 44, 45][348-B; 351-B-D]

Hira Devi v. District Board, Shahjahanpur [1952] SCR 1122; CBI v. Ramesh Gelli (2016) 3 SCC 788 : [2016]

1 SCR 762; P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) (1998) 4 SCC 626 : [1998] 2 SCR 870; Manish Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 14 SCC 420 : [2013] 12 SCR 205 – referred to.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “University”; Law Lexicon; Third Edition of Halsbury’s, Volume 13, page 707; Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn. (West

Publishing Company) – referred to.

2.2 Evidently, the language of Section 2(b) of the PC Act indicates that any duty discharged wherein State, the public or community at large has any interest is called a public duty. The first explanation to Section 2 further clarifies that any person who falls in any of the categories stated under Section 2 is a public servant whether or not appointed by the government. The second explanation further expands the ambit to include every person who de facto discharges the functions of a public servant, and that he should not be prevented from being brought under the ambit of public servant due to any legal infirmities or technicalities. In the present case, on a prima-facie evaluation of the statements of the Vice-Chancellor), the account officer of Sumandeep Vidhyapith University and other witnesses, it appears that the respondent was the final authority with regard to the grant of admission, collection of fees and donation amount. [Paras 50, 51][354-A-C]

2.3 The charge sheet specifically discloses that the respondent allegedly was collecting certain extra amount over the prescribed fees on the pretext of allowing the students to fill up their examination forms. Therefore, paying the respondent the alleged amount was a condition precedent before filling up the forms, to appear for the examinations. Specifically, in the complaint, it was alleged that the respondent had demanded Rs.20 Lakhs to be paid to the co-accused, failing which the daughter of the complainant would not have been permitted to appear in the examination. The fact that there were a large number of cheques which were found during the raid is more than sufficient to establish a grave suspicion as to the commission of the alleged offence. The respondent has vehemently stressed upon the fact that he is admittedly a trustee of the “Sumandeep Charitable Trust” and has no connection with the “Sumandeep University”. But, it ought to be noted that the courts below have failed to analyze the connection between the trust and the University, as well as the relationship of the respondent with the university. Prima facie, a grave suspicion is made out that the respondent was rendering his service by dealing with the students and the examination aspect of the University. But a detailed appreciation of evidence is called for before one can reach a conclusion as to the exact position of the respondent vis-à-vis the University. [Paras 52, 53][354-D-H]

3. At this stage, the jurisdiction of this Court, with regards to Section 227 of CrPC, is limited and should not be excercised by conducting roving enquiries on the aspect of factual inferences. This case is not an appropriate one to have exercised the power under Section 227 to discharge the accused-respondent, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case. The trial court is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously. [Paras 54, 56][355-A; 356-B]

Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC

4 : [1979] 2 SCR 229; Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368 : [2010] 11 SCR 669; Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh. (2016) 7 SCC 353 : [2016] 3 SCR 579; Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University (2015) 16 SCC 530; K. Veeraswami v. Union Of India, (1991) 3 SCC

655 : [1991] 3 SCR 189 (12); State of Madhya Pradesh v. M. V. Narasimhan (1975) 2 SCC 377 : [1976] 1 SCR

6 (23); M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala [1963]

2 Suppl. SCR 724; Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 : [2018] 7 SCR 1191; Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012) 3 SCC 64 : [2012] 3 SCR 52 – referred to.

Per Ajay Rastogi, J. (Supplementing)

1. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was amended in 1964 based on the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee. Although, there are provisions in Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code to deal with public servants and those who abet them by way of criminal misconduct, they were found to be inadequate to deal with the offence of corruption effectively. To make the anti-corruption laws more effective, the Prevention of Corruption Bill was introduced in the Parliament. The object and statement of reasons of the Act, 1988 was intended to make the existing anti-corruption laws more effective by widening their coverage and by strengthening the provisions. The Act 1988 caters to its wide scope by providing for “different paths to liability, some of which are especially suited to, but by no means confined to, those who hold public office.” [Paras 4, 5][356-G-H; 357-AB]

2. The UGC Act was established by an Act of 1956 to make provisions for the coordination and determination of standards of education in universities. “University” has been defined under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act and those who are declared as ‘deemed to be university’, a declaration has to be notified under Section 3 with restrictions which has been imposed upon the deemed to be university as referred to under Section 23 of the UGC Act. “University” under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act is established either in the Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act. At the same time, such of the institutions for higher education other than the University created under the statutory enactment, after being declared by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to be university for the purposes of this Act and all provisions of the UGC Act shall apply to such institutions as if it were a university within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act. [Paras 8, 9][357-H; 358-A-B, G]

3. It cannot be lost sight of that the Act, 1988, as its predecessor that is the repealed Act of 1947 on the same subject, was brought into force with avowed purpose of effective prevention of bribery and corruption. The Act of 1988 which repeals and replaces the Act of 1947 contains a definition of ‘public servant’ with wide spectrum in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act, 1988, so as to purify public administration. The objects and reasons contained in the Bill leading to passing of the Act can be taken assistance of, which gives the background in which the legislation was enacted. When the legislature has introduced such a comprehensive definition of “public servant” to achieve the purpose of punishing and curbing the growing menace of corruption in the society imparting public duty, it would be apposite not to limit the contents of the definition clause by construction which would be against the spirit of the statute. [Para 10][358-H; 359-A-C]

4. By introduction of Section 2(c)(xi) of the Act, 1988, any person or member of any governing body with whatever designation called of any university has been included in the definition of “public servant” and any university includes all universities regardless of the fact whether it has been established under the statute or declared deemed to be university under Section 3 of the UGC Act. It is true that the distinction has been pointed out by the Parliament under the provisions of the UGC Act for consideration and determination of standards of education in universities, no distinction could be carved out between the university and deemed to be university so far it relates to the term ‘public servant’ as defined under Section 2(c) (xi) of the Act 1988. [Para 11][359-C-E]

5. In construing the definition of ‘public servant’ in clause

(c) of Section 2 of the Act 1988, the Court is required to adopt an approach as would give effect to the intention of the legislature. The legislature has, intentionally, while extensively defining the term ‘public servant’ in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act and clause (xi) in particular has specifically intended to explore the word ‘any’which includes all persons who are directly or indirectly actively participating in managing the affairs of any university in any manner or the form. In this context, the legislature has taken note of ‘any’ person or member of “any” governing body by whatever designation called of “any” university to be termed as ‘public servant’ for the purposes of invoking the provisions of Act 1988. The question for consideration is the term ‘any’ university in the broader spectrum to curb corruption in the educational institutions as referred to under Section 2(c)(xi) of Act 1988 and the legislature in its wisdom has referred to the word “any university” which clearly mandates the university referred to and controlled by its statutory mechanism referred to under Section 2(f) and deemed to be university under Section 3 of the UGC Act. [Paras 12, 14][359-E-G; 360-B-C]

Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation v. Rabi Sankar (2018)

1 SCC 468 : [2017] 13 SCR 921 – referred to.