Individual Performing 'Public Duty' Comes Under Purview Of Prevention Of Corruption Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that the General Manager of Nandini Milk Products, which is a unit of KMF, a cooperative society, would become a 'public servant' within the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, for the ACB to register a crime. A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by one V. Krishnareddy questioning the registration of crime against him for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner being an employee of KMF (Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Limited) throughout his career as he joined as Technical Officer, and at the relevant point in time, was working as General Manager and therefore, would not become a public servant within the meaning of 'public servant' under the Act. Further, he said that the very registration of crime by the ACB was one without jurisdiction and any further steps taken by the ACB are all acts without jurisdiction. Thus he sought annulment of entire proceedings. The counsel appearing for the bureau placing reliance on the coordinate bench judgment in the case of G. Krishnegowda v. State Of Karnataka, wherein it was held that an employee of Nirmithi Kendra is a public servant and the ACB would have jurisdiction to register a crime against a Project Manager of Nirmithi Kendra. He contended that the petitioner is also on the same footing and the petition deserves to be dismissed. Court findings: At the outset, the bench referred to Section 2(b) which defines 'public duty', Section 2(c)(viii) which defines any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty and Section 2(c)(ix) which defines a person who is the President, Secretary or other office-bearer of a registered cooperative society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking receiving or having received any financial aid from the Central Government or a State Government or any Corporation established under the Central Act or the State Act. It said, "What runs through the stream of definitions of public servant is, he should be appointed in a position or should be functioning in a position where he performs public duty. Expansive meaning is rendered to the phrase 'public servant' under the Act on its amendment in the year 1988, which broadened the horizons of the definition of public servant, than what it was in the original enactment of 1947." Referring to the judgment of the coordinate bench relied by the prosecution the bench said, "I am in respectful agreement with the reasons rendered by the coordinate Bench in the case of Krishnegowda (supra). The present case on hand is an amplification of the phrase 'public servant' qua the public duty that one performs." Following which the bench said what can be gathered from the source information report albeit prima facie is that, the petitioner has amassed wealth beyond the known source of income. It opined, "It is beyond any cavil of doubt that corruption has percolated to every nook and corner of public life in the country and has become an issue in all walks of life posing a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, corruption emerges in various hues and forms and it is therefore, unfathomable." Accordingly it held, "I, therefore, hold that the petitioner being a General Manager of Nandini Milk Products, which is a unit of the Federation i.e. KMF undoubtedly performs public duty and the Government obligations of such public duty was transferred to the Federation, when the Federation was created and therefore, the inescapable conclusion would be that the petitioner would be a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. If the petitioner is a public servant under the Act, the registration of crime against him for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Act, cannot be found fault with as it cannot be said, that it is, de hors jurisdiction." Case Title: V.KRISHNAREDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.685 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 310 Date of Order: 02nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2022 Appearance: Senior Advocate K.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, a/w Advocate RANGANATH R; Special Public Prosecutor P.N.MANMOHAN for respondent Click Here To Read/Download Order

Individual Performing 'Public Duty' Comes Under Purview Of Prevention Of Corruption Act: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags