STATE OF GUJARAT versus MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 330 · Decided: 27-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 G

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.