LexDILAWAR BALU KURANE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,_ I .. DILA WAR BALU KURANE A v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA JANUARY 8, 2002 [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] B Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947/Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 5(2) and 5(1) (d)/Sections 161and477 A. Accused-Lecturer of private college-Appointed to evaluate answer C scripts by University-Charged for accepting bribe for increasing marks- No prime facie case made against the accused-Held, the charges on the very face of it were redolent of improbability and absurdity and there was not even remote chance of the charges ultimately culminating into conviction. Shivaji University Act, 1974-Section 73(4) D ., lecturer of private college appointed for evaluation of answer scripts - by University-Whether public servant at relevant time to invoke proceeding u/s 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act-Held, is a public servant under Section 73(4) as he was appointed by University for a specified work and E was not public servant u/s 21 lPC-/ndian Penal Code, 1860-Section 21- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Section 5. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 227-Jurisdiction under-Scope of-limited to broad p probabilities of the case, the total effect of evidence and the documents produced-Not to make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the matter as if it is a trial. Interpretation of Statutes Legislative intent-Words in a statutes should not be brushed aside as courts always presume that legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose. Marginal Notes-Consideration of-Held, when the language of Section 75 G H 76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] l S.C.R. A is clear and unambiguous, there is no need of refer to the marginal note- Jt cannot restrict the meaning of the Section-Shivaji University Act, 1974- ~- Section 73(4). -:;..- Appellant, a lecture of a college run by Municipal Corporation was appointed to evaluate answer scripts by the University. It was alleged that he B demanded and accepted money for increasing marks of a candidate. Registrar, after information of the alleged act, filed a First Information Report after 7 days of the occurrence. No incriminating article was recovered from the accused. The statement of witnesses was recorded by police after ten months. As per the prosecution, trap was laid by private individuals to prove the C acceptance. Chargesheet was filed against the accused-appellant under Section 1611477 A IPC and under Sections 5(2) and 5(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Appellant filed writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge. High Court directed the D appellant to approach Trial Court. Appellant filed application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before Special ·-- .. Judge which was dismissed without considering the merit and holding that "" E appellant was a public servant. The revision petition against the same before High Court was also dismissed. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that he was not a public servant and to be a public servant under Section 73(4) ofShivaji University Act, 1974, a person must be salaried officer or employee of the University and that in view of marginal note of Section 73, sub-section (4) of Section 73 F would apply as conditions of service to the employees of University. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. The appellant being a lecture of a private college would not come within the definition of public servant as contained in Section G 21 of the Indian Penal Code. But, since he was appointed by the University for a specified work, namely to evaluate answer scripts, he was public servant at the relevant time under sub-section (4) of Section 73 of Shivaji University Act, 1974. [81-D-E) State a/Gujarat v. Manshankar Prabhasankar Dwivedi, (1973) l SCC H 313, distinguished. - ·-- D.B. KURANEv. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 77 1.2. Words in a statute should not be brushed aside as the Courts A always presume that legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and ~ the legislative intention is that every part of the statue should have effect. - - Language of Section 73( 4) of the Act is clear and the intention of the legislature was to bring the categories of persons, as indicated in the Section under the purview of sub-section ( 4) and these persons would be deemed to be B public servants. [80-G-H; 81-AI 1.3. It cannot be said that in view of margi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.