KANWARJIT SINGH KAKKAR versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 6 S.C.R. 895 · Decided: 28-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 6 S.C.R. 895 
KANWARJIT SINGH KAKKAR 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1041 of 2011) 
APRIL 28, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 
A 
B 
Quashing of proceedings - Allegation against the C 
government doctors that they indulged in private practice in 
the evening at their residence and charged consultation fee 
from patients which was contrary to the government rules -
FIR lodged under the Prevention of Corruption Act and under 
/PC - High Court declined to quash the FIR - On appeal, o 
held: The demand/receipt of fee by a medical professional 
for extending medical help by itself cannot be held to be an 
illegal gratification as the amount so charged is towards 
professional remuneration - If, however, it is alleged that 
medical professional as a Government doctor indulged in 
E 
malpractice in any manner, the same would be a clear case 
to be registered under the /PC as also under the Prevention 
of Corruption Act - Case of unlawful engagement in trade by 
public seNants can also be held to be made out u/s. 168, /PC 
if the facts of a particular case indicate that besides F 
professional discharge of duty by the doctor, he is indulging 
in trading activities of innumerable nature which is not 
expected of a medical professional - In the instant case, no 
presumption could be drawn that the alleged fee was accepted 
as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official 
act so as to treat the receipt of professional fee as gratification G 
much less illegal gratification - Also, offence u!s. 168, /PC 
cannot be said to have been made out as the treatment of 
patients by a doctor cannot by itself be held to be engagement 
in a trade - However, the said act may fall within the ambit of 
895 
H 
896 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
A misconduct to be dealt with under the Service Rules - Thus, 
no prim a facie case either uls. 168, I PC or s. 13( 1 )( d) r/w 
s. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was made out in 
the facts and circumstances of the case - FIR registered 
uoder /PC or Prevention of Corruption Act not sustainable 
B and is quashed - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
s.13(1)(d) r.w. s.13(2), s.7 - Penal Code, 1860 - s.168 -
Punjab Civil Medical (State Service Class /) Rules, 1972 -
r.15. 
C 
Words and phrases: Corruption - Meaning of - In the 
context of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
The appellants were medical officers/doctors 
working with the Punjab Government. An FIR was 
registered under Section 13(1)(d) r.w. Section 13(2) of the.. 
D Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 168 IPC 
against the appellants alleging that both the government 
doctors were doing private practice in the evening at their 
residence and charging Rs. 100 in cash per patient as 
prescription fee. The complainant stated in his FIR that 
E as per the government instructions, the government 
doctors could not charge any fee from the patients for 
checking them. A raid was conducted at the residence of 
both the appellants, where they were allegedly nabbed 
doing private practice as they were trapped receiving Rs. 
F 100 as consultation charges from the complainant. 
The appellants filed petitions for quashing the FIR. 
The plea of appellants was that there was no law 
prohibiting government doctor from any act on 
humanitarian ground and the appellants could be alleged 
G to have indulged in private practice only if they have 
deviated from the rules laid down by the State 
Government and even if there was deviation from these 
rules prohibiting private practice by government doctors 
contrary to the government instructions, it could warrant 
H 
KANWARJIT SINGH KAKKAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 897 
AND ANR. 
initiation of departmental proceedings and the . A 
punishment under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment 
and Appeal) Rules and not under IPC or Prevention of 
Corruption Act. The High Court dismissed the petitions. 
The instant appeals were filed challenging the order of 
the High Court. 
B 
Allowing.the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the light of the definition of 'corruption' 
defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act in its 
Preamble and under Section 7 of the Act, it would clearly C 
emerge that 'corruption' is acceptance or demand of 
illegal gratification for doing an official act. The demand/ 
receipt of fee while doing private practice by itself cannot 
be held to be an illegal gratification as the same obviou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.