REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO.    866         OF 2009  (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4907 of 2006)

State of Punjab ….Appellant

Versus

Nirmal Kaur ….Respondent                

1

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal  is to the order passed by a learned Single  

Judge holding that the respondent cannot be proceeded against in terms of  

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act’).

3. Factual position in a nutshell needs to be noted.

2

Respondent-Nirmal  Kaur  was  running  a  coaching  centre.   On  the  

accusation of commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465,  

467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’)  

and  Section  13(1)(d)  read  with  Section  13(2)  

of the Act investigation was undertaken, charges were framed by learned  

Sessions Judge Ferozepur,  under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)  

of the Act as well as the offences punishable under IPC.  A petition under  

Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’)  

was  filed  inter  alia  taking  the  stand that  since  the  respondent  was  not  a  

public servant, there was no question of framing charges in terms of Section  

13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.  The trial court relied on clauses  

(viii) (xi) and (xii)  of sub-clause 2(c) of the Act to hold that the charges  

3

were framed legally.  The High Court held that clauses (viii) (xi) and (xii) of  

sub-section 2(c) of the Act have no application to the facts of the case.  It  

was  pointed  out  that  the  accused  was  running  a  coaching  centre  and  

therefore she was not performing any public duty. The framing of charge so  

far  as  Section  13  of  the  Act  is  concerned  was  to  be  quashed  while  the  

accused was to face trial  for the aforesaid  offences punishable  under the  

IPC.   

4. Learned counsel  for the appellant  submitted that  since the accused  

was running a coaching centre, she was carrying on public duty.

5. Section 2(c) reads as follows:

4

(i) any  person  in  the  service  or  pay  of  the  Government or remunerated by the Government by fees  or commission for the performance of any public duty;

(ii) any  person  in  the  service  or  pay  of  the  local  authority;

(iii) any person in the service or pay of a corporation  

established  by  or  under  a  Central,  Provincial  or  State  Act, or any authority or a body owned or controlled or  aided by the Government or a Government company as  defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of  1956);

(iv) any judge, including any person empowered by  law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of  anybody of persons, any adjudicatory functions;

5

(v) any  person  authorized  by  a  Court  of  justice  to  perform any duty, in connection with the administration  of  justice,  including  a  liquidator,  receiver  or  commissioner appointed by such Court;

(vi) any arbitrator or other person to whom any cause  or matter has been referred for decision or report  by a  Court of justice or by a competent public authority.

(vii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which  

he is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise  an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an  election.

(viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of  which he is authorized or required to perform any public  duty;

(ix) any  person  who  is  president,  secretary  or  other  office bearer of a registered co-operative society engaged  

6

in  agriculture,  industry,  trade  or  banking,  receiving  or  having  received  any  financial  aid  from  the  Central  Government  or  a  State  Government  or  form  any  corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial  or  State  Act,  or  any  authority  or  body  owned  or  controlled or aided by the Government or a Government  company as  defined  in  Section  617  of  the  Companies  Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);

(x) any  person  who  is  a  chairman,  member  or  employee  of  any  Service  Commission  or  Boar,  by  

whatever  name  called  or  a  member  of  any  selection  committee appointed by such Commission or Board for  the conduct of any examination or making any selection  on behalf of such Commission or Board;

(xi) any person  who  is  a  Vice-Chancellor  or  member of  any  governing  body,  professor,  reader,  lecturer  or  any other  teacher  or  employee by whatever designation called, of any University and any  person whose services have been availed of by a University or any  

7

other  public  authority  in  connection  with  holding  or  conducting  examinations;

(xii) any person who is an office-bearer or an employee  of  an  educational,  scientific,  social,  cultural  or  other  institution, in whatever manner established, receiving or  having received any financial assistance from the Central  Government or any State Government or local or other  public authority.”

6. Stand of the appellant-State is that in any event by running coaching  

centre,  the  respondent  was  performing  public  duty.  The  submission  

overlooks  basic  requirement  of  clause  (vii)  of  Section  2(c)  which  is  

applicable  only  when  a  public  servant  holds  an  office  by  which  he  

authorized or required to perform any public duty.  In the instant case it is  

8

nobody’s case that the respondent was holding an office by virtue of which  

she was authorized to perform any public duty.  That being so there is no  

merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

………..……..........................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………............................. J.

(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, April 28, 2009

9