Bombay High Court Rules Non-Public Servants Can Face Corruption Charges
In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court allows prosecution of non-public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act for abetting public servants.
Non-public servants can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court quashed a discharge order based on the accused's status as a non-public servant.
The trial court must expedite the reconsideration of the discharge application within a month.
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has recently determined that individuals who are not public servants can still be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act if they are accused of aiding a public servant in committing an offense. This ruling came during the hearing of a revision application by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which challenged a prior decision by the Additional Sessions Court that had dismissed charges against a farmer from Mouda on the grounds of his non-public servant status.
Justice Mehroz Pathan presided over the case and referenced a significant Supreme Court ruling in the matter of P Nallammal versus State, which established that non-public servants who conspire with or assist public servants in corrupt activities can be tried alongside them in a Special Judge's court. The court emphasized that Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act explicitly penalizes abetment of offenses under the law, regardless of whether the offense was ultimately executed due to such abetment. The penalties outlined in this section include imprisonment ranging from three to seven years and potential fines.
The ACB's deputy superintendent of police had contested an earlier order from April 25, 2019, which allowed the accused's discharge. The state argued that the discharge was improperly based solely on the assertion that the accused was not a public servant, thereby claiming that the relevant sections of the Corruption Act were inapplicable. The defense counsel for the accused also argued for a remand, stating that the trial court had failed to adequately assess the merits of the discharge application, including the existence of sufficient evidence for prosecution.
Justice Pathan concurred that the discharge order was flawed, noting that the trial court had not properly evaluated the application on its merits. Consequently, the High Court remanded the case back to the additional sessions judge for a fresh review. The accused has been instructed to appear before the trial court, which has been directed to resolve the discharge application as quickly as possible, ideally within a month. Furthermore, given that the trial has been ongoing since 2016, Justice Pathan urged the trial court to aim for a conclusion within eight months.
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal standing regarding the prosecution of non-public servants in corruption cases, potentially broadening the scope of accountability in public service corruption. The decision underscores the importance of examining all parties involved in corrupt practices, regardless of their official status.
