High Court dismissed the State's criminal application for leave to appeal against acquittal. Court held respondent, a teacher in a non-grant school, was not a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, hence prosecution failed.
Criminal Application stands rejected; leave to file appeal under Section 378 CrPC is not granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 APPLN1931.2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1931 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon. … Applicant (Orig. Complainant)
VERSUS
Sunil Parshuram Verma, Age : 47 years, R/o. Plot No. B-2, Gat No. 2/2, R.L. Colony, Jalgaon, Taluka District Jalgaon.
… Respondent
Mr A. R. Borulkar, APP for the applicant
Mr Pramod Gaikwad, Advocate h/f Mr A. G. Talhar, Advocate for
respondent
CORAM : A. M. DHAVALE, J. DATE : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2017.
ORDER:
2 APPLN1931.2016
3 APPLN1931.2016
prosecution case that the accused was a public servant on the ground that his appointment was governed by a statute of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act and he was serving in a school approved by the Government.
4 APPLN1931.2016
was collecting annual donations from the teachers for providing free bus service, free text books and note books, uniform and shoes to the students and for meeting the expenses of guests called in the school. All the teachers were extending cooperation except the complainant - Sopan Patil. When the donation was demanded by the Headmistress, Sopan got annoyed and left the school without signing the muster. The accused was helping the Headmistress for collection of donation. Later on, Sopan offered him donation and the said amount received by the accused was not a bribe but was a donation.
case of demand and acceptance should have been admitted and the question as to whether the amount received was gratification or legal remuneration should have been considered. The definitions of gratification and legal remuneration read as under.
7(b) “Gratification.” The word “gratification” is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money.
7(c) “Legal remuneration.” The words “legal
remuneration” are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to accept.
5 APPLN1931.2016
(i) to (vii) .........
(ix) to (xi) ..........
the functions of the Government but it is not exclusively done by the
6 APPLN1931.2016
Government. There are many private schools which are imparting education. Therefore, mere imparting education cannot be said to be performance of a public duty so as to be covered under sub-clause (viii) of Section 2(c).
Manshankar Prabhashankar Dwivedi: Sh. Valiabhdas Gordhandas
Thakkar 1973 AIR (SC) 330 . In this case, the accused was a Lecturer of a Government College. He was appointed by University as examiner. The issue was whether he was public servant as defined u/s 21(9) of Indian Penal Code as, was applicable under the old law. At that time, provisions of a public servant were totally different. He
7 APPLN1931.2016
has further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane Versus State of Maharashtra 2002 AIR (SC)
564 . In this case, it was held that the appellant was serving as a Lecturer in a private college and, therefore he was not a Government servant. As he was appointed by University for specified work of evaluation, he was public servant within the meaning of Section 73(4) of the Shivaji University Act, 1974.
8 APPLN1931.2016
[ A. M. DHAVALE ] JUDGE
sgp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee of a non-grant-in-aid private school is a 'public servant' under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Whether leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent should be granted.
Whether the accused, not being a public servant, could be punished under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Gujarat Versus Manshankar Prabhashankar DwivediExplained¶45
State of Gujarat Versus Manshankar Prabhashankar Dwivedi: Sh. Valiabhdas Gordhandas Thakkar 1973 AIR (SC) 330 · Who else cites this
Dilawar Balu Kurane Versus State of MaharashtraRelied on¶48
Dilawar Balu Kurane Versus State of Maharashtra 2002 AIR (SC) 564 · Who else cites this
Shivaji Madhavrao Pawar versus State of Maharashtra & OrsFollowed¶53
Shivaji Madhavrao Pawar versus State of Maharashtra & Ors (Criminal Writ Petition No. 366 of 2016)
4 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon
Sunil Parshuram Verma
A. M. DHAVALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
