STATE OF PUNJAB versus NIRMAL KAUR

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 28-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009) 7 S.C.R. 126 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
NIRMAL KAUR 
Criminal Appeal No. 866 of 2009 
APRIL 28, 2009 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
Section 13 - Person running a coaching centre -
C Accusations -
Charges under /PC and s.13 of PCA -
Maintainability of - Held: Not maintainable since the person 
running a coaching centre is not public servant, charges uls 
13 of the Act cannot be framed. 
0 
The question involved in this appeal was whether a 
person running a coaching centre was a public person 
and could be proceeded against under Section 13 of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act. Trial Court held that charges 
could be framed. High Court quashed the charges since 
the person was not performing any public duty. Hence 
E the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : Stand of the appellant-State is that in any 
event by running coaching centre, the respondent was 
F performing public duty. The submission overlooks basic 
requirement of clause (vii) of Section 2(c) of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act, 1988 which is applicable only when a 
public servant holds an office by which he is authorized 
or required to perform any public duty. In the instant case 
G it is nobody's case that the respondent was holding an 
office by virtue of which she was authorized to perform 
any public duty. [Para 6] [129-F-G] 
H 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 866 of 2009 
126 
• 
STATE OF PUNJAB V. NIRMAL KAUR 
127 
From the Judgement and Order dated 31.03.2006 of the A 
Hon'ble High Court of Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 464 
of 2006. 
Ranjit Kapoor, AAG, Sonia Kapoor, S.N. Mehrotra, Falak 
Mohd, Kuldip Singh, for the Appellant. 
B 
Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Dinesh Verma, A.P. Mohanty, 
Dr. Kailash Chand, for the Respondents. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
learned Single Judge holding that the respondent cannot be 
proceeded against in terms of Section 13(2) of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). 
3. Factual position in a nutshell needs to be noted. 
Respondent-Nirmal Kaur was running a coaching centre. 
c 
D 
On the accusation of commission of offences punishable under 
Sections420, 465, 467, 468, 471and1208 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 13(1)(d) read with 
E 
Section 13(2) of the Act investigation was undertaken, charges 
were framed by learned Sessions Judge Ferozepur, under 
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act as well as 
the offences punishable under IPC. A petition under Section 401 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') 
F 
was filed inter alia taking the stand that since the respondent 
was not a public servant, there was no question of framing 
charges in terms of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of 
the Act. The trial court relied on clauses (viii) (xi) and (xii) of sub-
clause 2(c) of the Act to hold that the charges were framed 
G 
legally. The High Court held that clauses (viii) (xi) and (xii) of 
sub-section 2(c) of the Act have no application to the facts of 
the case. It was pointed out that the accused was running a 
coaching centre and therefore she was not performing any public 
duty. The framing of charge so far as Section 13 of the Act is 
H 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A concerned was to be quashed while the accused was to face 
trial for the aforesaid offences punishable under the IPC. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since 
the accused was running a coaching centre, she was carrying 
on public duty. 
5. Section 2(c) reads as follows: 
(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; 
(ii) any person in the service or pay of the local authority; 
(iii) any person in the service or pay of a corporation 
established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, 
or any authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by 
the Government or a Government company as defined in 
Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); 
(iv) any judge, including any person empowered by law to 
discharge, whether by himself or as a member of anybody 
of persons, any adjudicatory functions; 
(v) any person authorized by a Court of justice to perform 
any duty, in conne

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