# Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 8
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-28
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 5389 of 2023
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-50596
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
21 - 'public servant', The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 120-B, 7,
8, 9, 10 and 12 - The National Highway
Authority of India Act, 1988 - Section
2(c) , 27 ,35, 37 - 'public servant' -
definition -
all persons remunerated by
fees or commission for the performance of
any public duty by the Government are
'public servants', whether appointed by
the Government or not - A person
performing a public duty, who is being
paid retainership fee by the Government
will be a public servant, even if he has
been employed by a private company, and
he will be a public servant irrespective of
any legal defect in his right to hold that
situation.(Para -19 )

Demand of illegal gratification - Conspiracy -
allegation in FIR - commission of offence under
prevention Act - by named accused persons
and other unknown public servants and private
persons - C.B.I. charge-sheet accuses Resident
Engineer Anil Kumar Singh (applicant) -
dishonestly accepting a bribe for recommending
interim bill payment, despite his public duties -
applicant not a 'public servant' under the
National Highway Authority of India Act - not
prosecuted under Prevention of Corruption Act .
(Para - 1 to 18)

HELD:-Applicant (Anil Kumar Singh) is a public
servant for the purpose of the Prevention Act,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,875 of 49,892. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39875 for what follows._

8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 8 ILRA 8
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5389 of 2023
With
Application U/S 482 No. 5391 of 2023

Anil Kumar Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Purnendu
Chakravarty,
Pranjal
Jain,
Shivanshu Goswami

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Anurag Kumar Singh

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
21 - 'public servant', The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 120-B, 7,
8, 9, 10 and 12 - The National Highway
Authority of India Act, 1988 - Section
2(c) , 27 ,35, 37 - 'public servant' -
definition -
all persons remunerated by
fees or commission for the performance of
any public duty by the Government are
'public servants', whether appointed by
the Government or not - A person
performing a public duty, who is being
paid retainership fee by the Government
will be a public servant, even if he has
been employed by a private company, and
he will be a public servant irrespective of
any legal defect in his right to hold that
situation.(Para -19 )

Demand of illegal gratification - Conspiracy -
allegation in FIR - commission of offence under
prevention Act - by named accused persons
and other unknown public servants and private
persons - C.B.I. charge-sheet accuses Resident
Engineer Anil Kumar Singh (applicant) -
dishonestly accepting a bribe for recommending
interim bill payment, despite his public duties -
applicant not a 'public servant' under the
National Highway Authority of India Act - not
prosecuted under Prevention of Corruption Act .
(Para - 1 to 18)

HELD:-Applicant (Anil Kumar Singh) is a public
servant for the purpose of the Prevention Act,
1988. He is rightly prosecuted for commission of
offences under the Act. Both the applications
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are misconceived.
Interim order vacated. (Para - 50,53)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. Vs PNB, (1990) 4 SCC
406

2. Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon Vs The
St. of Maha., through STF, CBI Mumbai, 2013
SCC OnLine SC 255

3. State of M.P. Vs Ram Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 88

4. Subramanian Swamy Vs Manmohan Singh,
(2012) 3 SCC 64

5. St. of Guj. Vs Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah,
(2020) 20 SCC 360

6. Gopinath Vs The Superintendent of Police &
Ors., 2014 (2) Kar.L.J. 216 = 2014 (4) KCCR
3668

7. UPSC Vs Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela, (2006) 2
SCC 482

8. Roshan Lal Tandon Vs U.O.I., (1968) 1 SCR
185

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. No. 5389 of 2023 has been filed by
the
applicant
Anil
Kumar
Singh
challenging validity of (i) the Charge-sheet
no. 6 arising out of Crime No. RC 216
2022 A 0012 dated 10.09.2022 under
8 All. Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
9
Sections 120-B, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police
Station CBI/AC-I, New Delhi, so far as it
relates to him (ii) prosecution sanction
order dated 27.03.2023, (iii) the cognizance
and summoning order dated 06.04.2023
passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti
Corruption, C.B.I., West, Lucknow in
Session Case No. 709 of 2023 and (iv) the
consequential proceedings of Session Case
No. 709 of 2023 pending in the court of
Special Judge, C.B.I., West, Lucknow.

2. Application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. No. 5391 of 2023 has been filed by
the applicants - (1) Bedram Sharma, (2)
Parsuram Sharma and (3) Anand Mohan
Sharma challenging validity of (i) the
Charge-sheet no. 6 arising out of Crime
No. RC 216 2022 A 0012 dated
10.09.2022 under Section 120-B I.P.C.
and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
Police Station CBI/AC-I, New Delhi, so
far as it relates to them (ii) the
cognizance and summoning order dated
06.04.2023 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I., West,
Lucknow in Session Case No. 709 of
2023
and
(iii)
the
consequential
proceedings of Session Case No. 709 of
2023 pending in the court of Special
Judge, C.B.I., West, Lucknow.

3. As both the applications challenge
the same proceedings on the same set of
grounds, both the applications are being
decided by a common judgment.

4. Heard Sri Raju Ramchandran
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Purnendu
Chakravarty
and
Sri
Anuj
Tandon
Advocates, the learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, the
learned counsel for the respondent - C.B.I.
assisted by Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh
and perused the record.

5. The aforesaid case has been
registered on the basis of an F.I.R lodged
on 10.09.2022 alleging that Anil Kumar
Singh operates from the local office of M/s
Voyants Solution Pvt. Ltd. and the coaccused Bedram Sharma of M/s S.R.S.C
Infra Pvt. Ltd. approached Anil Kumar
Singh for clearing pending bills and Anil
Kumar Singh assured him of favorable
clearance in lieu illegal gratification
demanded by him and in pursuance of the
aforesaid conspiracy, certain bills of M/s
S.R.S.C Infra Pvt. Ltd. were cleared by
Anil Kumar Singh.

6. The F.I.R alleges commission of
offence under Section 120- B I.P.C read
with Section 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the
Prevention of Act, 1988, by the named
accused persons and other unknown public
servants and private persons.

7. The charge-sheet submitted by the
C.B.I. states that Anil Kumar Singh was
performing public duties while functioning
as the Resident Engineer for the project and
he had the authority to certify payments of
the
contractors.
Anil
Kumar
Singh
dishonestly demanded and accepted bribe
as a motive/reward for recommending
interim payment of bills.

8. Sri Raju Ramchandran Senior
Advocate, the learned Counsel for the
applicants has submitted that the applicant
in Application No. 5389 of 2023 Anil
Kumar Singh, is not a 'public servant' as
per the definition of the term given in
Section 2(c) of the National Highway
Authority of India Act (hereinafter referred
as 'N.H.A.I.' Act) and, therefore, he cannot
be prosecuted under the Prevention of
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Corruption Act, which contains provisions
for offences committed by public servants
only.

9. The learned Counsel for the applicant
has further submitted that the applicants in
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.
5391 of 2023 - (1) Bedram Sharma, (2)
Parsuram Sharma and (3) Anand Mohan
Sharma have been charged for commission of
offences under Section 120-B I.P.C. and
Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, for entering into a
criminal conspiracy with Anil Kumar Singh
(the applicant in Application No. 5389 of
2023) and because Anil Kumar Singh is not a
public servant and he cannot be tried for
offences under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
consequently the applicants (1) Bedram
Sharma, (2) Parsuram Sharma and (3) Anand
Mohan Sharma, cannot be charged for
commission of offence of criminal conspiracy
with Anil Kumar Singh.

10. A copy of the contract entered into
between
N.H.A.I
and
M/s
Voyants
Solutions Pvt. Ltd in joint venture with
Yongma Engineering Company Ltd. and
associate member Cho & Kim Engineering
Pvt. Ltd. for "Supervision Consultancy
Services for the Construction of Balance
Works of two inning with paved shoulders
of Sitarganj-Bareilly Section of NH-74
from 254.820 to 329.280 in the State of
Uttar Pradesh & Uttarakhand" has been
annexed. The Appendix to the aforesaid
consultancy
agreement
mentions
that
N.H.A.I. would pay Rs. 3,47,31,000/-
towards remuneration for local professional
staffs and it specifically mentions payment
of Rs.1,60,000/- to resident-cum -highway
engineer of M/s Vyoants Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
in joint venture with Yongma Engineering
Company Ltd.

11. A copy of a retainer-ship letter
dated 10.03.2020 issued by M/s Yongma
Engineering Company Ltd. has been
annexed with the affidavit which states that
Anil Kumar Singh has been employed by
M/s Yongma Engineering Company Ltd.
for the project in question and his
designation
is
Resident-cum-Highway
Engineer and the Annexure to the aforesaid
letter indicates that Anil Kumar Singh has
been appointed on a monthly fixed retainership fee of Rs. 1,31,000/-.

12. The respondent - C.B.I. has filed
a counter affidavit inter alia stating that
Anil Kumar Singh had demanded undue
advantage from Anand Mohan Sharma, an
employee of M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd. for
clearance of some bills of the company.
Anand Mohan Sharma informed Bedram
Sharma, a Director of the Company and
Bedram Sharma directed Anand Mohan
Sharma to deliver the amount to Anil
Kumar Singh. C.B.I. received a reliable
information of the demand / delivery and
acceptance of bribe, registered an F.I.R. and
laid a trap in presence of two independent
witnesses and it arrested Anil Kumar Singh
and Anand Mohan Sharma when the latter
had handed over the amount to the former
at his residence and the former had returned
Rs.1,00,000/-
to
the
latter
as
his
share/commission.
Rs.1,00,000/-
were
recovered from a pocket of Anand Mohan
Sharma and he was taken to the house of
Anil
Kumar
Singh,
from
where
Rs.14,00,000/- were recovered

13. Sri Raju Ramchandran, the
learned Senior Advocate for the applicants,
has submitted that Anil Kumar Singh is a
Resident Engineer appointed on a fixed
retainership fee by a private company M/s
Yongma Engineering Company Ltd. - the
consultancy agency engaged appointed by
8 All. Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
11
the Authority. Anil Kumar Singh is not paid
any remuneration by the Government or by
the N.H.A.I. He has submitted that the
advisers/consultants have been expressly
excluded from the definition of 'public
servant' given in Section 27 of the N.H.A.I.
Act by virtue of Regulation 20 falling
under
Chapter
III
of
the
N.H.A.I
(Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion)
Regulations, 1996, which provides that the
provision of Section 27 relating to public
servant shall not apply to an advisor or a
consultant appointed by the authority.

14. The learned counsel for the
applicants has further submitted that it is a
settled principle of law that a special
statutory provision over-rides the general
provisions. His submission is that the
National Highway Authority of India and
the statutory regulations framed there under
are special provisions and the definition of
'public servant' under the aforesaid Act
would override upon the definition of
'public servant' given in the Indian Penal
Code or the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 which are general laws.

15. The learned Counsel for the
applicants has further submitted that the
N.H.A.I. Act was enacted subsequent to the
Prevention of Corruption Act and yet it
contains a definition of the term 'public
servant' which is different from the
definition of the term given in the
Prevention
of
Corruption
Act
and,
therefore, the definition given in the latter
special Act will prevail upon the definition
given in the former Act.

16. Per contra, Sri. Anurag Kumar
Singh, the learned Counsel for the
respondent - C.B.I. has submitted that the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a
special
law
which
contains
special
provisions for prevention of corruption and
prosecution of persons committing the
offence
of
corruption
whereas
the
definition of the term given in N.H.A.I. Act
would be relevant for the general purposes
of conditions of employment only. His
submission is that the definition of the term
'public servant' given in the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 would prevail for the
purpose of applicability of the law relating
to prevention of corruption upon the
definitions given in any other law.

17. Before proceeding any further, it
would be appropriate to have a look at the
relevant provisions of different Statutes,
which have been placed by the learned
Counsel for the parties.

18. The term 'public servant' is
defined in Section 21 of the Penal Code,
and the relevant part of Section 21 reads as
follows: -

"21.
"Public
servant".-The
words "public servant" denote a person
falling under any of the descriptions
hereinafter following, namely:-
* * *

Twelfth.-Every person-

in the service or pay of the
Government or remunerated by fees or
commission for the performance of any
public duty by the Government;
* * *

Explanation 1.-Persons falling
under any of the above descriptions are
public servants, whether appointed by the
Government or not.

Explanation 2.-Wherever the
words "public servant" occur, they shall
be understood of every person who is in
actual possession of the situation of a
public servant, whatever legal defect there
may be in his right to hold that situation.
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

* * *."

19. Thus all persons remunerated by
fees or commission for the performance of
any public duty by the Government are
'public servants', whether appointed by the
Government or not. A person performing a
public duty, who is being paid retainership
fee by the Government will be a public
servant, even if he has been employed by a
private company, and he will be a public
servant irrespective of any legal defect in
his right to hold that situation.

20. However, Section 5 of the I.P.C.
specifically states that: -

"5. Certain laws not to be
affected by this Act.-Nothing in this Act
shall affect the provisions of any Act for
punishing mutiny and desertion of officers,
soldiers, sailors or airmen in the service of
the Government of India or the provisions
of any special or local law."

21. Therefore, the definition given in
Section 21 of the I.P.C. will give way to the
definition given in any special law.

22. Section 27 of the N.H.A.I. Act,
1988 provides that the employees of the
Authority shall be deemed to be 'public
servants'. It reads as follows: -

27.

Employees
of
the
Authority to be public servants.-All
members, officers and employees of the
Authority
shall,
when
acting
or
purporting to act in pursuance of the
provisions of this Act or of any rule or
regulation made thereunder, be deemed
to be public servants within the meaning
of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860).

23. The word 'employee' is defined in
Section 2 of the N.H.A.I. Act as follows: -

"2.-In this Act, unless the
context otherwise requires,- "employee"
means a person in the full-time service of
the Authority;

24. Section 35 of the N.H.A.I. Act
empowers
the
Authority
to
make
regulations to carry out the provisions of
the Act. In particular, and without prejudice
to the generality of the foregoing power,
such regulations may provide for the terms
and conditions of service, method of
recruitment and the remuneration of
officers and other employees appointed
by the Authority. Section 37 of N.H.A.I
Act provides that, every rule and every
regulation made under the Act shall be laid
before each House of Parliament.

25. In exercise of the aforesaid power
conferred under Section 35 of the N.H.A.I
Act, the N.H.A.I. has framed the National
Highway
Authority
of
India
(Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion)
Regulations, 1996. Chapter II of the
aforesaid regulation deals with 'Terms and
Conditions of Employment of Officers and
Employees' and Chapter III thereof deals
with
'Terms
and
Conditions
of
Employment
of
Advisers/Consultants'.
Regulations 20 and 21 falling under
Chapter III provide as follows:-

"20. Advisers/consultants not to
be public servants Provision of section 27
of the Act, relating to public servants shall
not apply in case of an adviser or a
consultant appointed by the Authority.

21. Provisions of Chapter-II not
to apply-No provision of Chapter-II of
these regulations shall apply to an adviser
8 All. Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
13
or a consultant appointed by the Authority
under this Chapter."

26. On the basis of the aforesaid
provisions, Sri. Raju Ramchandran has
submitted that the N.H.A.I has entered into
an agreement with M/s Voyants Solutions
Pvt. Ltd in joint venture with Yongma
Engineering Company Ltd. and associate
member Cho & Kim Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
for supervision and consultancy services
for the construction of a highway. The
consultancy
agreement
stipulates
that
N.H.A.I. would pay Rs. 3,47,31,000/-
towards remuneration for local professional
staffs and it specifically mentions payment
of Rs.1,60,000/- to Resident-cum-Highway
engineer of M/s Vyoants Solutions Pvt. Ltd
in joint venture with Yongma Engineering
Company Ltd. M/s Yongma Engineering
Company Ltd. has retained Anil Kumar
Singh
as
the
Resident-cum-Highway
Engineer for the project on a monthly fixed
retainer-ship fee of Rs. 1,31,000/-. His
submission is that Anil Kumar Singh is not
an employee of the N.H.A.I. as per Section
2 (c) of the N.H.A.I. Act and, therefore,
Anil Kumar Singh is not a public servant
under Section 27 of the N.H.A.I. Act. He
submits that this situation is further
fortified by Regulation 20 aforesaid which
provides that the provision of Section 27 of
the Act, relating to public servants shall not
apply in case of an adviser or a consultant
appointed by the Authority.

27. The submission appears to be
prima facie impressive and on the basis of
the aforesaid submission, interim orders
were passed in favour of the applicants in
both the applications on 04.07.2023 staying
proceedings of the trial. However, a closer
scrutiny
reflected
by
the
following
discussion would reveal that the submission
is misconceived.

28. N.H.A.I. Act, 1988 is an Act "to
provide for the constitution of an Authority
for the development, maintenance and
management of national highways and for
matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto." The Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Act states that the
development and maintenance of national
highways is fully financed by the Central
Government as this function comes within
Entry 23 of the Union List of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution. Section 5 of
the National Highways Act, 1956 provides
that the Central Government may direct
that any function in relation to the
development or maintenance of national
highways shall also be exercisable, among
others,
by
any
officer
or
authority
subordinate to the Central Government.
Under this provision, the function of
execution of the activities had been
delegated to the State Governments.Since
the Central Government had no direct
administrative control over the executing
agencies, several problems were being
faced. For this reason, National Highways
Authority was created to take over
development and maintenance of the
national
highway
system.
The
main
function of the Authority is to develop and
maintain
national
highways
whose
management and operation is vested in the
Central Government.

29. On the other hand, the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 is "An Act to
consolidate and amend the law relating to
the prevention of corruption and for
matters
connected
therewith".
The
statement of objects and reasons of the
Statute states that: -

"Statement
of
Objects
and
Reasons-1. The Bill is intended to make
the existing anti-corruption laws more
14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
effective by widening their coverage and by
strengthening the provisions.

2. The Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947, was amended in 1964 based on
the recommendations of the Santhanam
Committee.
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.
There are also provisions in the Criminal
Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, to
enable attachment of ill-gotton wealth
obtained through corrupt means, including
from transferees of such wealth. The Bill
seeks to incorporate all these provisions
with modifications so as to make the
provisions more effective in combating
corruption among public servants.

3. The Bill, inter alia, envisages
widening the scope of the definition of the
expression "public servant", incorporation
of offences under Sections 161 to 165-A of
the Indian Penal Code, enhancement of
penalties provided for these offences and
incorporation of a provision that the order
of the trial court upholding the grant of
sanction for prosecution would be final if it
has not already been challenged and the
trial has commenced. In order to expedite
the proceedings, provisions for day-to-day
trial of cases and prohibitory provisions
with regard to grant of stay and exercise of
powers of revision on interlocutory orders
have also been included.

4. Since the provisions of Sections
161 to 165-A are incorporated in the
proposed legislation with an enhanced
punishment, it is not necessary to retain
those sections in the Indian Penal Code.
Consequently, it is proposed to delete those
sections
with
the
necessary
saving
provision.

5. The notes on clauses explain in
detail the provisions of the Bill."
(Emphasis Supplied)

30. Thus it is clear that the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 is a Special Statute
which has been enacted with the specific
object of consolidating and amending the
law relating to the prevention of corruption,
to make the existing anti-corruption laws
more effective by widening their coverage
and by strengthening the provisions so as to
make the provisions more effective in
combating
corruption
among
public
servants and to widen the scope of the
definition
of
the
expression
"public
servant". N.H.A.I. Act is also a Special
Statute
enacted
with
the
object
of
regulating construction and management of
National Highways only. It does not
contain any provision for imposing any
punishment for commission of any offence,
particularly the offence of corruption.

31. In Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v.
Punjab National Bank, (1990) 4 SCC
406,
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
enunciated the principle of interpretation
that in the case of inconsistency between
the provisions of two enactments, both of
which can be regarded as special in nature,
the conflict has to be resolved by reference
to the purpose and policy underlying the
two enactments and the clear intendment
conveyed by the language of the relevant
provisions therein.

32. In Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak
Memon
versus
The
State
of
Maharashtra,
through
STF,
CBI
Mumbai, 2013 SCC OnLine SC 255, the
question was as to whether the provisions
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2000 as well as of
Terrorist
And
Disruptive
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987 provide for overriding effect on any other law for the time
being in force; and as to whether the
provisions of JJ Act would be applicable in
8 All. Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
15
case of TADA. Admittedly, the TADA Act
1985/1987 and JJ Act, 1986/2000, both
contained provisions providing over-riding
effect on any other law for the time being
in force. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that "where there is inconsistency between
the provisions of two statutes and both can
be regarded as special in nature, the
conflict has to be resolved by reference to
the purpose and policy underlying the two
enactments and the clear intendment of the
legislature conveyed by the language of the
relevant provisions therein".

33. In State of M.P. v. Ram Singh,
(2000) 5 SCC 88, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court
explained
the
object
of
the
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 thus: -

"10. The Act was intended to
make
effective
provisions
for
the
prevention of bribery and corruption
rampant amongst the public servants. It is
a social legislation intended to curb illegal
activities of the public servants and is
designed to be liberally construed so as to
advance its object. Dealing with the object
underlying the Act this Court in R.S. Nayak
v. A.R. Antulay [(1984) 2 SCC 183] held:

"18. The 1947 Act was enacted,
as its long title shows, to make more
effective provision for the prevention of
bribery
and
corruption.
Indisputably,
therefore, the provisions of the Act must
receive such construction at the hands of
the court as would advance the object and
purpose underlying the Act and at any rate
not defeat it. If the words of the statute are
clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest
duty of the court to give effect to the
natural meaning of the words used in the
provision. The question of construction
arises only in the event of an ambiguity or
the plain meaning of the words used in the
statute would be self-defeating. The court is
entitled to ascertain the intention of the
legislature to remove the ambiguity by
construing the provision of the statute as a
whole keeping in view what was the
mischief when the statute was enacted and
to remove which the legislature enacted the
statute. This rule of construction is so
universally accepted that it need not be
supported by precedents. Adopting this rule
of construction, whenever a question of
construction arises upon ambiguity or
where two views are possible of a
provision, it would be the duty of the court
to adopt that construction which would
advance the object underlying the Act,
namely, to make effective provision for the
prevention of bribery and corruption and at
any rate not defeat it."

11.
Procedural
delays
and
technicalities of law should not be
permitted to defeat the object sought to be
achieved by the Act. The overall public
interest and the social object is required to
be kept in mind while interpreting various
provisions of the Act and deciding cases
under it."

34. In Subramanian Swamy v.
Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: -

"68. Today, corruption in our
country not only poses a grave danger to
the concept of constitutional governance, it
also threatens the very foundation of Indian
democracy and the rule of law. The
magnitude of corruption in our public life
is incompatible with the concept of a
socialist secular democratic republic. It
cannot be disputed that where corruption
begins all rights end. Corruption devalues
human rights, chokes development and
undermines
justice,
liberty,
equality,
fraternity which are the core values in our
Preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Court is that any anti-corruption law
has to be interpreted and worked out in
such a fashion as to strengthen the fight
against corruption. That is to say in a
situation where two constructions are
eminently reasonable, the Court has to
accept the one that seeks to eradicate
corruption to the one which seeks to
perpetuate it."
(emphasis supplied)

35. N.H.A.I. Act, 1988 is an Act to
provide for the constitution of an Authority
for the development, maintenance and
management of national highways and for
matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto, and it does at all deal with
corruption
and
punishment
therefor.
Section 2 of the N.H.A.I. Act specifically
states that the definitions given in that
section are for the purposes of the N.H.A.I.
only and, therefore, those definitions are
not to be read in other enactments and the
definitions under the N.H.A.I. Act would
certainly not be relevant for the purpose of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

36. On the other hand, the relevant
part of Definitions contained in Section 2
of the Prevention Act, 1988 provides that: -

2. Definitions.-In this Act,
unless the context otherwise requires,-

(b) "public duty" means a duty
in the discharge of which the State, the
public or the community at large has an
interest;

Explanation.-In
this
clause
"State" includes a corporation established
by or under a Central, Provincial or State
Act, or an authority or a body owned or
controlled or aided by the Government or a
Government company as defined in S. 617
of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);

(c) "public servant" means-

(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;
* * *

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

Explanation 1.-Persons falling
under any of the above sub-clauses are
public servants, whether appointed by the
Government or not.

Explanation 2.-Wherever the
words "public servant" occur, they shall
be understood of every person who is in
actual possession of the situation of a
public servant, whatever legal defect there
may be in his right to hold that situation.

37. Section 2 (b) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 provides that"public
duty" means a duty in the discharge of
which the State, the public or the
community at large has an interest;

38. Development and maintenance of
national highways is fully financed by the
Central Government and this function
comes within the purview of Entry 23 of
the Union List of the Seventh Schedule to
the Constitution. Section 5 of the National
Highways Act, 1956 provides that the
Central Government may direct that any
function in relation to the development or
maintenance of national highways shall
also be exercisable by any authority. The
N.H.A.I. has been created under the
N.H.A.I. Act, 1988 for discharge of the
Central Government's duty of construction
and maintenance of National Highways,
which is a public duty. The N.H.A.I. has
engaged Yongma Engineering Company
Ltd.
for
performing
supervision
and
providing consultancy services regarding
8 All. Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
17
construction of a Highway and Anil Kumar
Singh is discharging the duty of the
Resident Engineer in the Project as an
employee of the Company. Therefore, Anil
Kumar Singh is performing a public duty,
as defined under Section 2 (b) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

39. Any person remunerated by the
Government by fees or commission for the
performance of any public duty or who
holds an office by virtue of which he is
authorised or required to perform any
public duty, is a 'public servant' within the
meaning of the term given in Section 2 (c)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Anil Kumar Singh is a person remunerated
for the performance of the public duty by
the fees paid by the Government to
Yongma Engineering Company Ltd. - the
company, which has engaged him and he is
authorised and required to perform a public
duty and, therefore, he is a public servant
within the meaning of the term given in
Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.

40. This position is further clarified
by the Explanations appended to Section 2
(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, which provide that for deciding
whether the person is a 'public servant'or
not, it is not relevant whether he has been
appointed by the Government or not and
only this much is relevant whether he is in
actual possession of the situation of a
public servant. Thus for the purpose of
applicability of Section 2 (c) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is
wholly irrelevant that Anil Kumar Singh
has
been
appointed
by
Yongma
Engineering Company Ltd. and not by the
Government and what is relevant is that
Anil Kumar Singh is in actual possession of
the situation of a public servant, as he has
the authority to approve bills for payments
regarding
construction
of
National
Highways.

41. After hearing the submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties, the
judgment was reserved on 17.08.2023. The
case was listed on 22.08.2023 for delivery
of judgment, but on the said date, before
pronouncement of the judgment, the
learned counsel for the applicants supplied
his written submissions along with a
compilation of photocopies of case-laws
and, therefore, pronouncement of judgment
was deferred and the case laws submitted
by the learned counsel for the applicants
subsequently
were
also
taken
into
consideration.

42. The learned Counsel for the
applicants has relied upon the judgment in
the
cases
of
State
of
Gujarat v.
Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, (2020) 20
SCC 360. Brief facts of that case were that
an FIR was filed against four accused
persons,
including
the
respondentMansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah,
alleging he had demanded bribe for
allowing the complainant's daughter to take
the M.B.B.S. examination. A charge-sheet
was filed against several persons, including
the respondent, for offences under Sections
7, 8, 10 and 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
respondent filed a discharge application
under Section 227 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, which was rejected by the
Session Court, but the High Court of
Gujarat allowed the revision filed against
that order and discharged the Respondent
on the ground that Section 2(c) (xi) was
inapplicable as the said Institution was a
"deemed to be university". The Hon'ble
Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set
aside the order passed by the High Court
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and restored the order rejecting the
discharge application of the accused. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"44. As discussed earlier, the
object of the PC Act was 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
was to shift focus from those who are
traditionally called public officials, to
those individuals who perform public
duties. Keeping the same in mind, as
rightly submitted by the learned senior
Counsel for the Appellant-State, 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.

45. Therefore, for all the above
reasons, we are of the opinion that 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."

43. The judgment in Mansukhbhai
Kanjibhai Shah (Supra) does not render
any support to the applicants' case, rather it
supports the respondent.

44. The learned Counsel for the
applicants next relied upon the judgment in
the
case
of
Gopinath
versus
The
Superintendent of Police and Others, 2014
(2) Kar.L.J. 216 = 2014 (4) KCCR 3668.

46.1 The question in that case
was "with respect to the petitioner who is a
Project Manager of Nirmithi Kendra which
is
neither
enunciated
by
the
State
Government
or
Central
Government,
except a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act and the case of
the petitioner does not fall within the
definition of Section 2(12) of Lokayukta
Act, so as to initiate action under Section
13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act.

46.2
The
Court
found
that
"except a provision that has been made in
the bye-laws of Nirmithi Kendra to receive
the funds etc., by the State Government or
Central Government, in the absence of any
such fund being received from the State
Government or Central Government and
without there being any misuse of power or
misuse of the amount so available with the
society, there was no scope for the
investigation officer to file a complaint to
the Lokayukta and the said complaint even
if it filed, is non-est."

46.3 S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 20494 of
2014 filed against the aforesaid order was
dismissed by the following order: -

"Special
Leave
Petition
is
dismissed."

45. The aforesaid decision of an
Hon'ble Single Judge of the Karnataka
High Court is based on the peculiar facts of
the case noted above, where the petitioner
was employed in a co-operative society
which did not receive any funds from the
Government and where the Government
did not exercise any control over the
society. The present case arises out of
allegation of demand and acceptance of
bribe for approval of bills for certain works
regarding construction of a National
Highway on behalf of the N.H.A.I., which
is State within the meaning of the term
used in Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and, therefore, Gopinath versus The
Superintendent of Police and Others
(Supra) has no application to the facts of
the present case.
8 All. Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
19

46. The next judgment placed by the
learned Counsel for the applicants is UPSC
v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela, (2006) 2
SCC 482. Facts of that case were that the
respondent 1 Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela
was appointed as Drugs Inspector on
11.03.1996 on short-term contract basis on
a fixed salary for a period of six months
from the date of joining or till the date the
candidate selected by the Union Public
Service Commission (UPSC) joined duty
on regular basis, whichever was earlier. The
appointment of respondent 1 was renewed
after every six months with short breaks
and it continued for over five years. An
advertisement was issued by UPSC on 243-2001 for making regular selection on the
post of Drugs Inspector. Under the relevant
recruitment rules made in exercise of
powers conferred by the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution, the upper age-limit
for making direct recruitment is 30 years,
which is relaxable for government servants
up to five years in accordance with the
instructions or orders issued by the Central
Government. Respondent 1 had become
overage by two years at the time when the
advertisement was issued and he submitted
an application seeking age relaxation and
thereafter he filed an original application
before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Tribunal directed the Administrator to
decide the representation made by the
respondent 1. Meanwhile, the respondent 1
was provisionally allowed to appear in the
interview. Nearly 5 months after the
interview, UPSC cancelled the candidature of
respondent 1 and his contract appointment
came to an end on 30-9-2002. The Bombay
High Court allowed his Writ Petition and
directed to issue an age relaxation certificate
to the respondent 1 and UPSC was directed to
consider the claim of the respondent 1 and to
make a recommendation for his appointment
as Drugs Inspector. Allowing the appeal filed
against the order passed by the High Court,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"19. It, therefore, follows that
employment under the Government is a
matter of status and not a contract even
though the acquisition of such a status may
be preceded by a contract, namely, an offer of
appointment is accepted by the employee.
The rights and obligations are not determined
by the contract of the two parties but by
statutory rules which are framed by the
Government in exercise of power conferred
by Article 309 of the Constitution and the
service rules can be unilaterally altered by
the rule-making authority, namely, the
Government.

20. There is no dispute that
Respondent 1 was engaged or hired on
contract to work as Drugs Inspector for a
period of six months from the date of joining
or till a candidate selected by UPSC joined
on regular basis, whichever was earlier. The
contract further stipulated that even if a
regularly selected candidate did not join,
Respondent 1 shall stand relieved on the
expiry of six months. In Director, Institute of
Management
Development
v.
Pushpa
Srivastava (1992) 4 SCC 33, it was held that
where the appointment is purely on ad hoc
basis and is contractual and by efflux of time
the appointment comes to an end, the person
holding such post can have no right to
continue in the post. It was further held that
this is so even if the person is continued from
time to time on ad hoc basis for more than a
year... ... It is, therefore, clear that
Respondent 1 did not have any right to
continue as Drugs Inspector after expiry of
the six months' period for which he had been
appointed."

47.