# STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH

- **Citation:** [2020] 9 S.C.R. 330
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-04-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 2018
- **Bench:** N. V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Ajay Rastogi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-gujarat-v-mansukhbhai-kanjibhai-shah-34870
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.2(c)(xi) - Deemed
University - Whether Deemed University is not covered under the
provisions of PC Act - Held: The object of the PC Act is 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 is to
shift focus from those who are traditionally called public officials,
to those individuals who perform public duties - Keeping the same
in mind, 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 - Therefore, a "Deemed University" is not excluded from
ambit of term "University" u/s.2(c)(xi) of the PC Act.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.2(c) - Public servant,
definition of - Held: The language of s.2(b) of the PC Act indicates
that any duty discharged wherein State, the public or community at
large has any interest is called a public duty - The first explanation
to s.2 further clarifies that any person who falls in any of the
categories stated under s.2 is a public servant whether or not
appointed by the government - The second explanation further
expands the ambit to include every person who de facto discharges
the functions of a public servant, and that he should not be prevented
from being brought under the ambit of public servant due to any
legal infirmities or technicalities.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: ss.7, 8, 10, 13(1)(b) and
13(2) - Charge sheet against respondent, trustee in a Deemed
University specifically disclosing that he allegedly was collecting
certain extra amount over the prescribed fees on the pretext of
allowing the students to fill up their examination forms - In the
330
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 330
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
331
complaint, it was alleged that the respondent had demanded Rs.20
Lakhs to be paid to the co-accused, failing which the daughter of
the complainant would not be permitted to appear in the examination
- Held: Plea taken by respondent was that he was a trustee of the
"Sumandeep Charitable Trust" and has no connection with the
"Sumandeep University" - Courts below failed to analyze the
connection between the trust and the University, as well as the
relationship of the respondent with the university - Prima facie, a
grave suspicion is made out that the respondent was rendering his
service by dealing with the students and the examination aspect of
the University - But a detailed appreciation of evidence is called
for before one can reach a conclusion as to the exact position of
the respondent vis-à-vis the University - Jurisdiction of Court with
regards to s.227 is limited and should not be exercised by conducting
roving enquiries on the aspect of factual inferences - Trial court
directed to proceed with the case expeditiously - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s.227.
Interpretation of Statutes: Extension of technical definitions
used under one statute to the other statute - Held: Technical
definitions under one statute should not be imported to another
statute which is not in pari materia with the first - The UGC Act and
the PC Act are enactments which are completely distinct in their
purpose, operation and object - The preamble of the UGC Act states
that it is 'an Act to make provision for the co-ordination and
determination of standards in Universities, and for that purpose, to
establish a University Grants Commission' - On the other hand, the
PC Act is an enactment meant to curb the social evil of corruption
in the country - As such, the extension of technical definitions used
under one Act to the other might not be appropriate, as the two Acts
are not in pari materia with one another - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 - University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - Per Ajay Rastogi,
J. (Supplementing) - Deemed University

## Text

_Characters 0–39,823 of 69,465. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39823 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
STATE OF GUJARAT
v.
MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH
(Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 2018)
APRIL 27, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.2(c)(xi) - Deemed
University - Whether Deemed University is not covered under the
provisions of PC Act - Held: The object of the PC Act is 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 is to
shift focus from those who are traditionally called public officials,
to those individuals who perform public duties - Keeping the same
in mind, 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 - Therefore, a "Deemed University" is not excluded from
ambit of term "University" u/s.2(c)(xi) of the PC Act.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.2(c) - Public servant,
definition of - Held: The language of s.2(b) of the PC Act indicates
that any duty discharged wherein State, the public or community at
large has any interest is called a public duty - The first explanation
to s.2 further clarifies that any person who falls in any of the
categories stated under s.2 is a public servant whether or not
appointed by the government - The second explanation further
expands the ambit to include every person who de facto discharges
the functions of a public servant, and that he should not be prevented
from being brought under the ambit of public servant due to any
legal infirmities or technicalities.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: ss.7, 8, 10, 13(1)(b) and
13(2) - Charge sheet against respondent, trustee in a Deemed
University specifically disclosing that he allegedly was collecting
certain extra amount over the prescribed fees on the pretext of
allowing the students to fill up their examination forms - In the
330
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 330
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
331
complaint, it was alleged that the respondent had demanded Rs.20
Lakhs to be paid to the co-accused, failing which the daughter of
the complainant would not be permitted to appear in the examination
- Held: Plea taken by respondent was that he was a trustee of the
"Sumandeep Charitable Trust" and has no connection with the
"Sumandeep University" - Courts below failed to analyze the
connection between the trust and the University, as well as the
relationship of the respondent with the university - Prima facie, a
grave suspicion is made out that the respondent was rendering his
service by dealing with the students and the examination aspect of
the University - But a detailed appreciation of evidence is called
for before one can reach a conclusion as to the exact position of
the respondent vis-à-vis the University - Jurisdiction of Court with
regards to s.227 is limited and should not be exercised by conducting
roving enquiries on the aspect of factual inferences - Trial court
directed to proceed with the case expeditiously - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s.227.
Interpretation of Statutes: Extension of technical definitions
used under one statute to the other statute - Held: Technical
definitions under one statute should not be imported to another
statute which is not in pari materia with the first - The UGC Act and
the PC Act are enactments which are completely distinct in their
purpose, operation and object - The preamble of the UGC Act states
that it is 'an Act to make provision for the co-ordination and
determination of standards in Universities, and for that purpose, to
establish a University Grants Commission' - On the other hand, the
PC Act is an enactment meant to curb the social evil of corruption
in the country - As such, the extension of technical definitions used
under one Act to the other might not be appropriate, as the two Acts
are not in pari materia with one another - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 - University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - Per Ajay Rastogi,
J. (Supplementing) - Deemed University - "University" under s.2(f)
of the UGC Act is established either in the Central Act, a Provincial
Act or a State Act - At the same time, such of the institutions for
higher education other than the University created under the
statutory enactment, after being declared by the Central Government
by notification in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to be
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
university for the purposes of this Act and all provisions of the
UGC Act shall apply to such institutions as if it were a university
within the meaning of clause (f) of s.2 of the Act - By introduction
of s.2(c)(xi) of the Act, 1988, any person or member of any
governing body with whatever designation called of any university
has been included in the definition of "public servant" and any
university includes all universities regardless of the fact whether it
has been established under the statute or declared deemed to be
university under s.3 of the UGC Act - No distinction could be carved
out between the university and deemed to be university so far it
relates to the term 'public servant' as defined under s.2(c) (xi) of
the Act1988 - In construing the definition of 'public servant' in
clause (c) of s.2 of the Act 1988, the Court is required to adopt an
approach as would give effect to the intention of the legislature -
The legislature has, intentionally, while extensively defining the term
'public servant' in clause (c) of s.2 of the Act and clause (xi) in
particular has specifically intended to explore the word'any' which
includes all persons who are directly or indirectly actively
participating in managing the affairs of any university in any manner
or the form - In this context, the legislature has taken note of 'any'
person or member of "any" governing body by whatever designation
called of "any" university to be termed as 'public servant' for the
purposes of invoking the provisions of Act 1988 -The question for
consideration is the term 'any' university in the broader spectrum
to curb corruption in the educational institutions as referred to under
s.2(c)(xi) of Act 1988 and the legislature in its wisdom has referred
to the word "any university" which clearly mandates the university
referred to and controlled by its statutory mechanism referred to
under s.2(f) and deemed to be university under s.3 of the UGC Act
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.2(c)(xi).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:
Per N. V. Ramana, J. (for himself and for
Mohan M. Shantagoudar, J.)
1. The contention of the respondent is that the term
"University" needs to be read in accordance with the UGC Act,
wherein only those Universities covered under the Section 2(f)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
333
of the UGC Act are covered under the PC Act. Such an
interpretation, by importing the technical definition under a
different Act may not be feasible herein. It is a settled law that
technical definitions under one statute should not be imported to
another statute which is not in pari materia with the first. The
UGC Act and the PC Act are enactments which are completely
distinct in their purpose, operation and object. The preamble of
the UGC Act states that it is 'an Act to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in Universities, and for
that purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission'. On the
other hand, the PC Act is an enactment meant to curb the social
evil of corruption in the country. As such, the extension of
technical definitions used under one Act to the other might not
be appropriate, as the two Acts are not in pari materia with one
another. The purport of UGC Act cannot be borrowed under the
PC Act, and that an independent meaning needs to be provided
for the term "University" as occurring under the PC Act. [Paras
31, 33][346-A-C; 347-G]
Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. v. Regional Director, ESI
Corporation (2014) 9 SCC 657 : [2014] 8 SCR 1021;
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar
Patro (2018) 1 SCC 468 : [2017] 13 SCR 921 -
referred to.
2.1 In Section 2(c) of the PC Act, the emphasis is not on
the position held by an individual, rather, it is on the public duty
performed by him/her. In this regard, the legislative intention
was to not provide an exhaustive list of authorities which are
covered, rather a general definition of 'public servant' is provided
thereunder. The object of the PC Act is 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 is to
shift focus from those who are traditionally called public officials,
to those individuals who perform public duties. Keeping the same
in mind, 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. Therefore, the High Court was incorrect in holding that
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
334
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
a "Deemed University" is excluded from the ambit of the term
"University" under Section 2(c)(xi) of the PC Act. [Paras 34, 44,
45][348-B; 351-B-D]
Hira Devi v. District Board, Shahjahanpur [1952] SCR
1122; CBI v. Ramesh Gelli (2016) 3 SCC 788 : [2016]
1 SCR 762; P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE)
(1998) 4 SCC 626 : [1998] 2 SCR 870; Manish Trivedi
v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 14 SCC 420 : [2013] 12
SCR 205 - referred to.
Black's Law Dictionary defines "University"; Law
Lexicon; Third Edition of Halsbury's, Volume 13, page
707; Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn. (West
Publishing Company) - referred to.
2.2 Evidently, the language of Section 2(b) of the PC Act
indicates that any duty discharged wherein State, the public or
community at large has any interest is called a public duty. The
first explanation to Section 2 further clarifies that any person who
falls in any of the categories stated under Section 2 is a public
servant whether or not appointed by the government. The second
explanation further expands the ambit to include every person
who de facto discharges the functions of a public servant, and
that he should not be prevented from being brought under the
ambit of public servant due to any legal infirmities or technicalities.
In the present case, on a prima-facie evaluation of the statements
of the Vice-Chancellor), the account officer of Sumandeep
Vidhyapith University and other witnesses, it appears that the
respondent was the final authority with regard to the grant of
admission, collection of fees and donation amount. [Paras 50,
51][354-A-C]
2.3 The charge sheet specifically discloses that the
respondent allegedly was collecting certain extra amount over
the prescribed fees on the pretext of allowing the students to fill
up their examination forms. Therefore, paying the respondent
the alleged amount was a condition precedent before filling up
the forms, to appear for the examinations. Specifically, in the
complaint, it was alleged that the respondent had demanded Rs.20
Lakhs to be paid to the co-accused, failing which the daughter of
the complainant would not have been permitted to appear in the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
335
examination. The fact that there were a large number of cheques
which were found during the raid is more than sufficient to
establish a grave suspicion as to the commission of the alleged
offence. The respondent has vehemently stressed upon the fact
that he is admittedly a trustee of the "Sumandeep Charitable
Trust" and has no connection with the "Sumandeep University".
But, it ought to be noted that the courts below have failed to
analyze the connection between the trust and the University, as
well as the relationship of the respondent with the university.
Prima facie, a grave suspicion is made out that the respondent
was rendering his service by dealing with the students and the
examination aspect of the University. But a detailed appreciation
of evidence is called for before one can reach a conclusion as to
the exact position of the respondent vis-à-vis the University. [Paras
52, 53][354-D-H]
3. At this stage, the jurisdiction of this Court, with regards
to Section 227 of CrPC, is limited and should not be excercised
by conducting roving enquiries on the aspect of factual inferences.
This case is not an appropriate one to have exercised the power
under Section 227 to discharge the accused-respondent, having
regards to the facts and circumstances of the case. The trial court
is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously. [Paras 54,
56][355-A; 356-B]
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC
4 : [1979] 2 SCR 229; Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau
of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368 : [2010] 11 SCR
669; Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State
of Madhya Pradesh. (2016) 7 SCC 353 : [2016] 3 SCR
579; Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University (2015) 16 SCC
530; K. Veeraswami v. Union Of India, (1991) 3 SCC
655 : [1991] 3 SCR 189 (12); State of Madhya Pradesh
v. M. V. Narasimhan (1975) 2 SCC 377 : [1976] 1 SCR
6 (23); M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala [1963]
2 Suppl. SCR 724; Commissioner of Customs (Import),
Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 :
[2018] 7 SCR 1191; Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan
Singh (2012) 3 SCC 64 : [2012] 3 SCR 52 - referred
to.
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
336
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
Per Ajay Rastogi, J. (Supplementing)
1. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was amended in
1964 based on the recommendations of the Santhanam
Committee. Although, 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, they were found to be
inadequate to deal with the offence of corruption effectively. To
make the anti-corruption laws more effective, the Prevention of
Corruption Bill was introduced in the Parliament. The object and
statement of reasons of the Act, 1988 was intended to make the
existing anti-corruption laws more effective by widening their
coverage and by strengthening the provisions. The Act 1988
caters to its wide scope by providing for "different paths to liability,
some of which are especially suited to, but by no means confined
to, those who hold public office." [Paras 4, 5][356-G-H; 357-AB]
2. The UGC Act was established by an Act of 1956 to make
provisions for the coordination and determination of standards
of education in universities. "University" has been defined under
Section 2(f) of the UGC Act and those who are declared as
'deemed to be university', a declaration has to be notified under
Section 3 with restrictions which has been imposed upon the
deemed to be university as referred to under Section 23 of the
UGC Act. "University" under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act is
established either in the Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State
Act. At the same time, such of the institutions for higher education
other than the University created under the statutory enactment,
after being declared by the Central Government by notification
in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to be university for the
purposes of this Act and all provisions of the UGC Act shall apply
to such institutions as if it were a university within the meaning
of clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act. [Paras 8, 9][357-H; 358-A-B,
G]
3. It cannot be lost sight of that the Act, 1988, as its
predecessor that is the repealed Act of 1947 on the same subject,
was brought into force with avowed purpose of effective
prevention of bribery and corruption. The Act of 1988 which
repeals and replaces the Act of 1947 contains a definition of 'public
servant' with wide spectrum in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
337
1988, so as to purify public administration. The objects and reasons
contained in the Bill leading to passing of the Act can be taken
assistance of, which gives the background in which the legislation
was enacted. When the legislature has introduced such a
comprehensive definition of "public servant" to achieve the
purpose of punishing and curbing the growing menace of
corruption in the society imparting public duty, it would be
apposite not to limit the contents of the definition clause by
construction which would be against the spirit of the statute.
[Para 10][358-H; 359-A-C]
4. By introduction of Section 2(c)(xi) of the Act, 1988, any
person or member of any governing body with whatever
designation called of any university has been included in the
definition of "public servant" and any university includes all
universities regardless of the fact whether it has been established
under the statute or declared deemed to be university under
Section 3 of the UGC Act. It is true that the distinction has been
pointed out by the Parliament under the provisions of the UGC
Act for consideration and determination of standards of education
in universities, no distinction could be carved out between the
university and deemed to be university so far it relates to the
term 'public servant' as defined under Section 2(c) (xi) of the Act
1988. [Para 11][359-C-E]
5. In construing the definition of 'public servant' in clause
(c) of Section 2 of the Act 1988, the Court is required to adopt an
approach as would give effect to the intention of the legislature.
The legislature has, intentionally, while extensively defining the
term 'public servant' in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act and
clause (xi) in particular has specifically intended to explore the
word 'any'which includes all persons who are directly or indirectly
actively participating in managing the affairs of any university in
any manner or the form. In this context, the legislature has taken
note of 'any' person or member of "any" governing body by
whatever designation called of "any" university to be termed as
'public servant' for the purposes of invoking the provisions of
Act 1988. The question for consideration is the term 'any'
university in the broader spectrum to curb corruption in the
educational institutions as referred to under Section 2(c)(xi) of
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
338
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
Act 1988 and the legislature in its wisdom has referred to the
word "any university" which clearly mandates the university
referred to and controlled by its statutory mechanism referred to
under Section 2(f) and deemed to be university under Section 3
of the UGC Act. [Paras 12, 14][359-E-G; 360-B-C]
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation v. Rabi Sankar (2018)
1 SCC 468 : [2017] 13 SCR 921 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
Per N. V. Ramana, J.
[2016] 3 SCR 579
referred to
Para 11
(2015) 16 SCC 530
referred to
Para 11
[1991] 3 SCR 189
referred to
Para 12
[1976] 1 SCR 6
referred to
Para 23
[1963] 2 Suppl. SCR 724
referred to
Para 23
[2018] 7 SCR 1191
referred to
Para 24
[2012] 3 SCR 52
referred to
Para 26
[2014] 8 SCR 1021
referred to
Para 32
[2017] 13 SCR 921
referred to
Para 32
[1952] SCR 1122
referred to
Para 35
[2016] 1 SCR 762
referred to
Para 46
[1998] 2 SCR 870
referred to
Para 47
[2013] 12 SCR 205
referred to
Para 48
[1979] 2 SCR 229
referred to
Para 54
[2010] 11 SCR 669
referred to
Para 55
Per Ajay Rastogi, J.
[2017] 13 SCR 921
referred to
Para 13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
989 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2018 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application (Against Order
passed by Subordinate Court) No. 1188 of 2017.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
339
 Aman Lekhi, ASG, Mukul Rohatgi, P.S. Narsimha, Huzefa
Ahmadi, Sr. Advs., Mahesh Agarwal, Mitul Shelat, Anshuman Srivastava,
Nishant Rao, E. C. Agrawala, Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Rajarajan, Ujjwal
Sinha, Ms. Mehak H., Sanjeev Kr. Choudhary, Advs., for the appearing
parties.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
N. V. RAMANA, J.
1. Corruption is the malignant manifestation of a malady menacing
the morality of men. There is a common perception that corruption in
India has spread to all corners of public life and is currently choking the
constitutional aspirations enshrined in the Preamble. In this context, this
case revolves around requiring this Court to facilitate making India
corruption free.
2. This Appeal is from the impugned judgment and final order
dated 02.02.2018, passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in
Criminal Revision Application (against Order passed by Subordinate
Court) No. 1188 of 2017.
3. The respondent herein is allegedly aTrustee of a trust called
the Sumandeep Charitable Trust, which established and sponsors
'Sumandeep Vidyapeeth', a deemed University, which is the institution
concerned herein.
4. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are that an
FIR, being I-ER No. 3 of 2017, dated 28.02.2017 was filed by one
Dr.Jasminaben, wife of Dilip bhai Devda, before the Vadodara City
A.C.B. Police Station against four accused persons including the present
respondent. Broadly, the allegations were that the complainant's elder
daughter was admitted to the MBBS Course in the above-mentioned
Deemed University in the year 2012. Her daughter's course fee was
completely paid up as per the annual fee slab. In the year 2017, her elder
daughter while filling up her final examination form, was asked to meet
the respondent herein. On meeting, the respondent, in conspiracy with
others, had communicated that the complainant's husband had to further
pay Rupees Twenty Lakhs for allowing the complainant's daughter to
take the examination. Further, it is alleged that the accused-respondent
had communicated that they can deposit a cheque and the same would
be returned on payment of cash, considering that demonetization had
recently taken place. In lieu of the same, cheques were deposited with
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
the accused-respondent herein. Thereafter, the complainant, who was
unwilling to pay the amount, filed the FIR.
5. After following the necessary procedure, phenolphthalein
powder was applied to the currency notes and were delivered to accused
Vinod alias Bharatbhai Savant (the alleged companion/agent of
respondent through whom the demand was facilitated). Thereafter,
accused Vinod confirmed the receipt of money to the respondent over
the telephone. The aforesaid incriminating conversation stood intercepted
in an audio video camera set up by the complainant. Further, separate
raids were conducted whereupon several undated cheques drawn in the
name of the institution worth more than Rs. 100 crores and certain fixed
deposits were recovered.
6. The chargesheet came to be filed on 25.04.2017 against several
accused persons, including the present respondent for various offences
under Sections 7, 8, 10 and 13 (1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the'PC Act'] read
with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to
as the'IPC'],.
7. The respondent herein filed a discharge application under
Section 227 of CrPC before the District and Sessions Court in Special
ACB Case No. 2 of 2017. The District and Sessions Court by an order
dated 29.11.2017, rejected the application.
8. Aggrieved by the rejection of the aforesaid application, the
respondent herein filed a criminal revision application, being Criminal
Revision Application No. 1188 of 2017, before the High Court of Gujarat,
at Ahmedabad. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order
dated 02.02.2018, allowed the revision and discharged the accusedrespondent herein.
9. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the State of Gujarat is in
appeal before this Court.
10. The senior counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that
the PCAct is a comprehensive statute which was passed to prevent
corruption and therefore, should be construed liberally as the legislature
intended to include the abovementioned acts, which harm the public at
large, within the ambit of the PC Act. The PCAct is a social legislation
intended to curb illegal activities of public servants and is designed to be
construed so as to advance its objectives. The Courts, while keeping the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
341
public interest in mind,must ensure that technicalities should not defeat
the object sought to be achieved.
11. The counsel further argued that public function need not be
the exclusive domain of the State; private institutions such as universities
may also perform a public function. The counsel placed reliance upon
Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya
Pradesh.,(2016) 7 SCC 353 and Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University.,
(2015) 16 SCC 530 to state that imparting education to the public is a
welfare activity and hence can be called as an activity done forpublic
good. Considering the UGC guidelines, the counsel submitted that
Deemed Universities effectively discharge the public function of imparting
education to the public.
12. Moreover, the counsel placed reliance upon the case of
K. Veeraswami v. Union Of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 to submit that
there is no requirement of having a master-servant relationship between
the competent authority and the public servant. The PC Act does not
define public servant, rather,it provides categories of the same. The
counsel further stated that the lack of any authority to grant the sanction
cannot result in non-prosecution. In such situations, there is no necessity
for obtaining sanction. In any case, the sanction was obtained from the
Charity Commissioner out of abundant caution.
13. Lastly, the counsel submitted that the respondent was
discharging a public duty. In the present facts, it was a pre-condition to
pay the respondent before obtaining an examination pass, although he
was never formally assigned this task or role. The counsel therefore
concluded that there need not be a requirement of positive command
under the law to discharge his public duty. In fact, there may not be any
formal requirement of providing remuneration or payment in lieu of the
service rendered.
14. On the contrary, the counsel on behalf of the respondent
submitted that it is a settled principle of law that a criminal statute has to
be construed strictly. In cases where two interpretations are possible,
the Courts must lean towards the construction which exempts the subject
from penalty rather than the one which imposes the same.
15. The counsel further vehemently argued that the respondent,
being a trustee, cannot be termed as a Public Servant. There is no
allegation in the charge sheet that the respondent was holding any position
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH
[N. V. RAMANA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
342
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
or post in the institution which was Deemed to be University or that he
was engaged by the institution for rendering any service. In light of the
above fact, the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent as
he does not qualify within the ambit of Section 2 (c)(xi) of the PC Act.
16. Moreover, the counsel argued that the High Court has correctly
held that the relevant provision as laid down under Section 2 (c)(xi) is
inapplicable in the present case as the said Institution was a "deemed to
be university". Finally, the counsel argued that no valid or proper sanction
was obtained for prosecuting the respondent. The sanction obtained from
the Charity Commissioner is not valid as he cannot be considered as a
Competent Authority, since he does not have the power to remove or
appoint a Trustee.
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the questions
to be answered herein arei.
Whether the respondent-trustee is a 'public servant' covered
under Section 2(c) of the PC Act?
ii. Whether the accused-respondent can be discharged under
Section 227 of CrPC?
18. The first question before us, that is, whether the respondentwho is allegedly a trustee in the Sumandeep Charitable Trust which
established and sponsors the said University ('Deemed to be University')
is a 'public servant' covered under Section 2(c) of the PC Act, can be
broken up into two parts: first, whether the 'Deemed University' is
covered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
and secondly, whether the 'respondent-trustee' can be termed as 'public
servant' under Section 2(c)(xi) of the PC Act?
19. Before we proceed further, we need to observe the relevant
provisions under the PC Act:
2(c.). "public servant" means-
...
(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 other public authority in connection with holding
or conducting examinations;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
343
20. Simply speaking, any person, who is a Vice-Chancellor, any
member of any governing body, professor, reader, lecturer, any other
teacher or employee, by whatever designation called, of any University,is
said to be a public servant. Further, the definition inter alia, covers any
person whose services have been availed of by a University, or any
other public authority in connection with holding or conducting
examinations.
21. However, the interpretative necessity arises in this case due
to the fact that the ambit of the term 'University', as occurring under
Section 2(c)(xi) of the PC Act, has not been clearly defined and the
question arises as to whether the same covers 'deemed to be University'
as well. In this regard, we need to observe certain ground rules on
interpretation, concerning the PC Act.
22. There is no gainsaying that nations are built upon trust. It is
inevitable that in a democracy one needs to rely on those with power
and influence and to trust them of being transparent and fair. There is no
doubt that any action which is driven by the self-interest of these powerful
individuals, rather than the public interest, destroys that trust. Where this
becomes the norm, democracy, the economy and the rule of law, all take
a beating, ultimately putting the whole nation at risk. Corrupt societies
often spring from the examples set at the highest levels of government,
but small-scale corruption can be equally insidious. In this regard, the
PC Act was formulated to bring about transparency and honesty in public
life, as indicated by its objects and reasons. We need to keep the aforesaid
legislative intention in mind while interpreting the provisions of the PC
Act.
23. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-State, vehemently
contended that the PC Act, being a welfare legislation, cannot be narrowly
interpreted, and rather, that a broad interpretation needs to be provided
for the same [refer State of Madhya Pradesh v. M. V. Narasimhan,
(1975) 2 SCC 377; M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala, (1963)
Supp. (2) SCR 724].
24. The golden rule of interpretation for any penal legislation is to
interpret the same strictly, unless any constitutional considerations are
involved, and in cases of ambiguity, the benefit of the same should enure
in favour of the accused. Having said so, we need to clarify that strict
interpretation does not necessarily mean literal interpretation in all cases,
rather the interpretation should have regards to the genuine import of
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH
[N. V. RAMANA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
344
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
the words, taken in their usual sense [refer Commissioner of Customs
(Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company, (2018) 9 SCC 1].
25. However, we are concerned herein with interpreting the
provisions of the PC Act. There is no dispute that corruption in India is
pervasive. Its impact on the nation is more pronounced, due to the fact
that India is still a developing economy. Presently, it can be stated that
corruption in India has become an issue which affects all walks of life.
In this context, we must state that although anti-corruption laws are
fairly stringent in India, the percolation and enforcement of the same are
sometimes criticized as being ineffective. Due to this, the constitutional
aspirations of economic and social justice are sacrificed on a daily basis.
It is in the above context that we need to resolve the issues concerned
herein.
26. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC
64, this 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 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)
27. We shall accordingly have due regard to the aforesaid principles
while interpreting the provisions herein. The point of contention relates
to whether a deemed University would be included within the ambit of
the PC Act, particularly under Section 2(c)(xi) of the same, where the
word used is "University". The learned senior counsel for the appellantState submits that the word "University" as used in Section 2(c)(xi) of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
345
the Act, must be purposively interpreted. An institution which is "deemed
to be a University" under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956
[UGC Act] plays the same role in society as a "University". These
institutions have the common public duty of granting degrees, which are
ultimately qualifications recognized in society. As such, an institution
which is "deemed to be University", such as the institution in the present
case, is included within the ambit of the term "University" used under
the Act.
28. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the
respondent, supporting the decision of the High Court in the impugned
judgment, submits that the term "University" as used in Section 2(c)(xi)
of the PC Act, does not include an institution which is "deemed to be a
University". The learned senior counsel submitted that the inclusive
definition of a "University" under the UGC Actis only for the limited
purpose of funding, and an institution which is "deemed to be a University"
is not a University for any other purpose. The learned senior counsel
submitted that the same is abundantly clear from the provisions of the
UGC Act, which makes a distinction between a "University", and an
institution "other than a University" which is "deemed to be a University".
29. At this juncture, it would be apposite to look to the holding of
the High Court in the impugned judgment on this point:
"27....However, the fact remains that either as a trustee or in
any other capacity, even if applicant is connected with Sumandeep
Vidyapith, which is not a regular University getting Government
grant in any manner whatsoever and thereby, when there is no
dispute that it is only a Deemed University, the submissions
recorded herein above on behalf of the applicant makes it clear
that such Deemed University cannot considered as a regular
University and thereby, applicant cannot be termed as a
public servant and therefore, irrespective of such change
report after the complaint, it is clear and obvious that
applicant cannot be termed as a public servant."
(emphasis supplied)
30. The counsel for the respondent has contended that the term
"University" needs to be read in accordance with the Section 2(f), 3 and
23 of the UGC Act, wherein a "deemed University" is different from
a"University",stricto sensu. However, we do not subscribe to such
contention for the reasons provided below.
STATE OF GUJARAT v. MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH
[N. V. RAMANA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
31. The contention of the respondent is that the term "University"
needs to be read in accordance with the UGC Act, wherein only those
Universities covered under the Section 2(f) of the UGC Act are covered
under the PC Act. Such an interpretation, by importing the technical
definition under a different Act may not be feasible herein. It is a settled
law that technical definitions under one statute should not be imported to
another statute which is not in pari materia with the first. The UGC
Act and the PC Act are enactments which are completely distinct in
their purpose, operation and object. The preamble of the UGC Act states
that it is 'an Act to make provision for the co-ordination and
determination of standards in Universities, and for that purpose, to
establish a University Grants Commission'. On the other hand, the
PC Act is an enactment meant to curb the social evil of corruption in the
country. As such, the extension of technical definitions used under one
Act to the other might not be appropriate, as the two Acts are not in
pari materia with one another.
32. The above principle of law was recently applied by a 3-Judge
Bench of this Court in Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. v. Regional Director,
ESI Corporation, (2014) 9 SCC 657, where an argument was advanced
by counsel that the interpretation of the term 'shop' under the ESI Act
should be determined in light of the definition of the same under the
relevant Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. Negativing this
contention of the counsel, the Court went on to hold that:
"52. An argument raised by the appellants herein is the issue
relating to the "doctrine of pari materia". It is contended that
since the ESI Act does not define the term "shop", the said
definition may be ascertained in the light of the definitions under
the relevant Shops and Commercial Establishments Act as enacted
by the respective State Legislatures, since the purpose and object
of both the enactments are one and the same.
53. For the above purpose, it would be necessary to look into the
concept of "doctrine of pari materia" and further ascertain
whether the given statutes are in fact pari materia with the ESI
Act. It is settled law that two statutes are said to be in pari materia
with each other when they deal with the same subject-matter.
The rationale behind this rule is based on the interpretative
assumption that words employed in legislations are used in an
identical sense. However, this assumption is rebuttable by the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
347
context of the statutes. According to Sutherland in Statutes and
Statutory Construction, Vol. 2, 3rd Edn.:
"Statutes are considered to be in pari materia to pertain to the
same subject-matter when they relate to the same person or
things, or to the same class of persons or things, or have the
same purpose or object."
...
58. It can be concluded that though the ESI Act, the 1948
Act and the 1961 Act deal with labour and workmen, in
essence and spirit they have a different scope and
application. The Acts do not appear to have any overlap in
their fields of operation and have mutually exclusive
schemes. Therefore, the argument that the Acts are parimateria
with each other, must fail.
59.