Bombay High Court
Sanjay Lakhanlal Parashar vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police … on 13 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:5566
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.36 OF 2017
Sanjay Lakhanlal Parashar,
aged: 44 years, occupation: private service,
residing at N.H.Khatri, Balaji Ward
No.1, Jain Bhavan, taluka and district:
Chandrapur. ..... Applicant.
:: V E R S U S ::
The State of Maharashtra, through the
Police Station Officer, Chandrapur City
Police Station, taluka and district
Chandrapur. ..... Non-applicant.
Shri Rahul Dhande, Counsel for the Applicant.
Mrs.S.S.Dhote, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Non-
applicant/State.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 23/04/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13/06/2025
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel Shri Rahul Dhande for the
applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Mrs.S.S.Dhote for the State.
…..2/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
2
2. The matter is already admitted on 14.8.2017 and
interim stay is operating in favour of the applicant by
order dated 6.4.2017.
3. By this revision, the applicant has challenged order
dated 20.2.2017 passed below Exh.17 by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur (learned Judge of
the trial court) in Special ACB Case No.21/2015 whereby
the application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging him of
offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read
with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the
P.C.Act) has been rejected.
4. Facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell are as
follows:
The applicant has been appointed on Ad-hoc basis
in Study Centre in the name of “Dnyandeep Shikshan
…..3/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
3
Prasarak Mandal, Chandrapur” (DSPM). The DSPM also
runs “Arts; Commerce and, Science College” along with
the said Study Centre. The said DSPM is defined under
Section 2(18) of The Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra
Open University Act, 1989 (YCMOU Act). The applicant
was appointed as an Assistant Coordinator of the Study
Centre in the year 2013-2014 by the Executive Committee
Meeting of the said DSPM. A student, who sought
admission in B.Com. Part-1, the course conducted by
Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University
(YCMOU), is to deposit additional amount of Rs.500/-
towards fees. However, the applicant demanded from
him Rs.1000/- and passed a receipt of Rs.500/-. Thus,
the applicant demanded an illegal gratification of
Rs.500/- for admitting the said student. As the said
student, who is complainant, was not willing to pay the
said amount, he approached the office of the Anti
…..4/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
4
Corruption Bureau at Chandrapur (the bureau) and
lodged a complaint. The applicant was caught in trap by
the bureau. After the successful trap and on completion
of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the
applicant.
5. During pendency of the trial, the applicant has
filed an application under Section 227 of the Code for
discharging him on ground that he is not a “public
servant” within meaning of Section 2(c)(iii) of the P.C.Act
and, therefore, offences alleged are not attracted against
him. As the offence is not made out against him, in view
of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C.Act,
he be discharged from charges levelled against him.
6. The said application is strongly opposed by the
State on ground that the applicant was discharging public
duty and, therefore, he is a “public servant” within the
…..5/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
5
meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act. He was also
taking remuneration for the services held by him and
after the trap, he was dismissed from services and,
therefore, he falls under definition of “public servant. In
view of that, the application for discharge is rightly
rejected by learned Judge of the trial court.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
the applicant was not discharging his duties as a “public
servant”. He has also not received any remuneration from
the Government. He was also not appointed by the
YCMOU. The requirement of Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act is
not fulfilled and, therefore, he is not a “public servant”
within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act as he was
not holding the office as “public servant” and, therefore,
the offence as alleged cannot be attracted against him. As
no prima facie material is on record to frame the charge
…..6/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
6
against him, the applicant is to be discharged from
charges by allowing this revision.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State submitted that the Study Centre is run under the
provisions of the YCMOU Act. The applicant was also
discharging his duties as a “public servant.” Thus, he is a
“public servant” within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the
P.C.Act and, therefore, learned Judge of the trial court has
rightly rejected the application and no interference is
called for. The revision being devoid of merits is liable to
be dismissed.
9. Issue falls for consideration is, whether the
applicant serving in the Study Centre run under the
provisions of the YCMOU Act is a “public servant” for the
purposes of the P.C.Act or not.
…..7/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
7
10. In view of Section 2(c)(i) of the P.C.Act, “public
servant” means 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.
11. A person would be “public servant” under Section
2(c)(i) of the P.C.Act if he is in the service of the
Government or in the pay of the Government or
Remunerated by fees or commission by performance of
any public duty.
12. There is no dispute that the applicant is not
permanent employee of the said Study Centre. He was
appointed on an honorarium basis. The communication
by the Information Officer of the DSPM shows that
appointment of the applicant is on honorarium. Section
5(1)(xa) of the YCMOU Act states about starting or
conducting a sub-centre or study centre in any territory in
…..8/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
8
the State of Maharashtra and outside the State of
Maharashtra, with the approval of the Government
concerned. The provisions of the YCMOU Act states about
manner of appointment of teachers and other University
employees, their emoluments, qualifications, code of
conduct, and other conditions of service including manner
of termination of service and other disciplinary action.
13. In view of Section 23(e) of the YCMOU Act, office
bearers of the said University can inspect the study
centres and the recognized institutions.
14. Thus, the YCMOU is established for the promotion
of the Open University and distance education system in
the educational pattern of the State of Maharashtra, as a
measure in the decentralization and reorganization of
University education in that State.
…..9/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
9
15. Sub-section (18) of Section 2 of the YCMOU Act,
defines “study centre” means a centre established,
maintained or recognised by the University for the
purpose of advising, counselling, evaluating or for
rendering any other assistance required by the students.
16. Section 25 of the YCMOU Act states that the
University shall establish a fund to be called the
University Fund. The following shall form part of, or be
paid into, the University Fund, namely –
(a) all contributions or grants made by the State
Government, the Central Government, the Indira
Gandhi National Open University and the
University Grants Commission;
(b) all income of the University from any source
whatsoever including income from fees and
charges;
…..10/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
10
(c) all income or moneys from trusts, bequests,
donations, endowments, subventions and other
grants;
(d) any sums borrowed from the banks, with the
previous permission of the State Government.
17. Thus, the provisions show that the University runs
the said “study centre” in view of the definition given in
the said Act and it is maintained and recognized by the
University for various purposes.
18. The applicant is facing the prosecution of offences
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the
P.C.Act. The Statement of Objects and reasons attached to
it show the intention of the legislature in providing a very
comprehensive definition of the words “public servant”. It
also gives background in which the Act was enacted. The
…..11/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
11
P.C.Act contains a much wider definition of “public
servant”.
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Bhatia
vs. State (GNCT of Delhi), reported in
MANU/SC/0625/2025, by referring its earlier decision in
the case of State of Gujarat vs. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai
Shah, reported in (2020) 20 SCC 360 observed as
follows:
“Our attention was also drawn to the notes on
clauses of Prevention of Corruption Bill dated 20-2
1987. Clause 2 of the Notes on Clauses in the
Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 2,
clarifies the legislative intent, wherein it was
commented as under:
This clause defines the expressions used in the Bill.
Clause 2(c) defines “public servant”. In the existing
definition the emphasis is on the authority…..12/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
12
employing and the authority remunerating. In the
proposed definition the emphasis is on public duty.”
20. In the case of State of M.P. vs. Ram Singh, reported
in (2000)5 SCC 88, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as
under:
“The menace of corruption was found to have
enormously increased by the First and Second
World War conditions. Corruption, at the initial
stages, was considered confined to the bureaucracy
which had the opportunities to deal with a variety
of State largesse in the form of contracts, licences
and grants. Even after the war the opportunities for
corruption continued as large amounts of
government surplus stores were required to be
disposed of by the public servants. As a
consequence of the wars the shortage of various
goods necessitated the imposition of controls and
extensive schemes of post-war reconstruction
involving the disbursement of huge sums of money
which lay in the control of the public servants…..13/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
13
giving them a wide discretion with the result of
luring them to the glittering shine of wealth and
property. In order to consolidate and amend the
laws relating to prevention of corruption and
matters connected thereto, the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 was enacted which was
amended from time to time. In the year 1988 a
new Act on the subject being Act 49 of 1988 was
enacted with the object of dealing with the
circumstances, contingencies and shortcomings
which were noticed in the working and
implementation of the 1947 Act. The law relating
to prevention of corruption was essentially made to
deal with the public servants, not as understood in
common parlance but specifically defined in the
Act.”
What is relevant to note from the aforesaid is that
the P.C.Act was enacted after the repeal of the 1947 Act
with the object of dealing with the circumstances,
contingencies and shortcomings which were noticed in
…..14/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
14
the working and implementation of the 1947 Act. While
holding that a deemed University would fall within the
ambit of the P.C.Act, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in State of Gujarat vs. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai
Shah (supra) observed that it falls upon the courts to
interpret provisions of an anti-corruption legislation in a
manner to strengthen the fight against corruption. It was
further added that in case two views are possible, the
court should accept the one that seeks to eradicate
corruption over the one which seeks to perpetuate it.
21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Bhatia
vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) (supra) observed that heart of
the definition of “public servant” under Section 2(c)(i) of
the P.C. Act lies in the expressions “remunerated by the
Government” and “for the performance of any public
duty”, and not in the mode of remuneration, such as “fees
…..15/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
15
or commission”. The ‘commission’ referred in
“remunerated by the Government by fees or commission
for the performance of public duty” is not analogous to
the ‘commission’ in Section 194H of the 1961 Act. It is
further observed that the definition of “public servant”
under Section 2(c)(i) of the P.C.Act can be said to have
three parts, as they are disjunctive: first, a person who is
in the service of the Government; secondly, a person who
is in the pay of the Government; thirdly, a person who is
remunerated by fees or commission for the performance
of any public duty. The expression “remunerated” in the
third part has to be read in context and in line with the
expressions in the first and the second part i.e., “in the
service” and “in the pay”. The three key expressions, “in
the service”, “in the pay” and “remunerated” by the
Government belong to the same genus and have the same
flavour. In the first two parts, a person is rendering his
…..16/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
16
services for the Government which implicitly means
discharging a public duty. Whereas, in the third part, even
though a person is not rendering his services for the
Government but is being remunerated for discharging a
public duty. In this context, the terms “fees or
commission” must be construed so as to give full effect to
the definition and the other provisions of the statute.
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Gujarat vs. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah (supra) held that
the emphasis is not on the position held by an individual,
rather, it is on the public duty performed by him/her. It is
observed in paragraph No.34 as under:
“On a perusal of Section 2(c) of the PC Act, we
may observe that 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 not to provide an…..17/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
17
exhaustive list of authorities which are covered,
rather a general definition of ‘public servant’ is
provided thereunder. This provides an important
internal evidence as to the definition of the term
“University”.
23. In the case of G.Krishnegowda vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in MANU/KARNATAKA/3037/2021
the Karnataka High Court dealt with the issue whether
project manager in a society registered under the
provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act,
1960 is a “public servant” and the relevant observation
are as under:
“From the reading of the definition of the word
‘public servant as found in the P.C.Act, it is very
clear that a person who holds an office by virtue of
which he is authorized or required to perform any
public duty, and any person or employee of any
institution if it has been receiving or if it has…..18/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
18
received any financial assistance from the State or
Central Government, shall be considered as a
public servant. The explanation to Section 2(c) of
the P.C. Act would further go to show that such a
person may be appointed by the Government or
not. Therefore, a public servant need not be a
Government/civil servant, but a Government/civil
servant is always a public servant”.
24. Section 2(b) defines “public duty” as a duty where
the State, the public, or the community at large has an
interest in its discharge.
Explanation – In this clause “State” includes a corporation
established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act,
or an 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.
…..19/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
19
25. While analyzing the public duty, a bare perusal of
the aforesaid definition clause of the Act, it can be
inferred that to designate a person as a “public servant”
and to thereby hold such person liable under the P.C.Act,
the thrust lies upon the nature of duty i.e. public duty
carried out by such person and not the position held by
him or her. The term “public servant”
lists down the categories of individuals under sub-clauses
(i) to (xii) of Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act who shall be
classified as a ‘Public Servant’. The first explanation to the
said provision also clarifies that persons falling under the
said sub-clauses shall be deemed to be public servants
irrespective of their appointing authority. The second
explanation further expands the ambit to include every
person who de facto discharges the functions of a public
servant, and that he/she should not be prevented from
being brought under the ambit of
…..20/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
20
“public servant” due to any legal infirmities or
technicalities. There is no doubt that in the objects and
reasons stated for enactment of the P.C.Act it has more
clear and widens the scopes of definition of “public
servant”.
26. Thus, a bare reading of the definition of word
‘public servant’ as defined in the P.C.Act, it is emphatically
clear that a person who holds the office by virtue of which
he is authorized or required to perform any public duty
and any person or employee of any institution, receiving
or having received any financial assistance from the
Central Government or State Government or local or
other public authority, shall be considered as “public
servant”. The explanation to Section 2(c) of P.C.Act
would further go to show that such a person may be
appointed by the Government or not, therefore, a “public
…..21/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
21
servant” need not be a Government / civil servant, but a
Government / civil servant is always a “public servant”.
27. In the light of the above well settled law, if the
facts of the present case are considered, it would show
that the applicant was serving in “study centre” which is
established in view of the provisions of YCMOU Act which
gets grants from the Government. The applicant was
serving as an Assistant Coordinator of the said “study
centre”. The said centre, in view of the provisions of the
YCMOU Act, is a centre established or maintained or
recognized by the University for the purpose of for the
purpose of advising, counselling, evaluating or for
rendering any other assistance required by the students.
28. Section 25 of the YCMOU Act shows that the
University can raise fund from the contributions or grants
made by the State Government, the Central Government,
…..22/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
22
the Indira Gandhi National Open University and the
University Grants Commission. Thus, the said University
is getting funds from the Government and the said “study
centre” is run to assist the students. Thus, the applicant
was appointed to discharge public duty. Generally, an
employee of “study centre” run by the University is
considered to be “public servant” under Section 21 of the
IPC, because the University being a public body is often
viewed as a pubic institution and its employees including
those at affiliated “study centres” are deemed to be
performing public duties. “Study Centres” being part of
University are typically viewed as extension of the
University operations. Their staff even if not directly
employed by the University itself, are often considered
part of the University organizational structure and are
performing the public duties.
…..23/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
23
29. In view of the above, contention of learned counsel
for the applicant that the applicant was not a “public
servant” is not sustainable.
30. On going through the entire chargesheet, it reveals
that the allegation levelled against the applicant is that he
has demanded the gratification amount from the
complainant who intends to seek admission in the B.Com
Part-I and accepted the same. He was found accepting
the gratification amount and the tainted amount was also
recovered from him. Thus, investigation papers reveal his
involvement in the crime.
31. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge, the court must
proceed on the assumption that the material which has
been brought on record by the prosecution is true and
evaluate the material in order to determine whether the
…..24/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
24
facts emerging from the material, taken on its face
value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary
of the offence alleged.
32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, reported in MANU/
SC/1113 2023, adverting to the earlier propositions of
law in its earlier decisions in the cases of State of Tamil
Nadu vs. N.Suresh Rajan and ors, reported in (2014) 11
SCC 709 and The State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath
Thapa, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 659 and The State of
MP Vs. Mohan Lal Soni, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 338,
has held as under:
“10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage
of considering an application for discharge the
court must proceed on an assumption that the
material which has been brought on record by the
prosecution is true and evaluate said material in…..25/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
25
order to determine whether the facts emerging
from the material taken on its face value, disclose
the existence of the ingredients necessary of the
offence alleged. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu
vs. N.Suresh Rajan and ors, (2014) 11 SCC 709
adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid
down on this subject has held:
“29. We have bestowed our consideration to
the rival submissions and the submissions
made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us.
True it is that at the time of consideration of
the applications for discharge, the court
cannot act as a mouthpiece of the
prosecution or act as a post office and may
sift evidence in order to find out whether or
not the allegations made are groundless so
as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite
that at the stage of consideration of an
application for discharge, the court has to
proceed with an assumption that the
materials brought on record by the…..26/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
26
prosecution are true and evaluate the said
materials and documents with a view to find
out whether the facts emerging therefrom
taken at their face value disclose the
existence of all the ingredients constituting
the alleged offence. At this stage, probative
value of the materials has to be gone into
and the court is not expected to go deep into
the matter and hold that the materials would
not warrant a conviction. In our opinion,
what needs to be considered is whether
there is a ground for presuming that the
offence has been committed and not
whether a ground for convicting the accused
has been made out. To put it differently, if
the court thinks that the accused might have
committed the offence on the basis of the
materials on record on its probative value, it
can frame the charge; though for conviction,
the court has to come to the conclusion that
the accused has committed the offence. The…..27/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
27
law does not permit a mini trial at this
stage.”
33. Thus, at the stage of considering the application
for discharge, the defence of the accused is not to be
looked into. The expression “the record of the case” used
in Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to
be understood as the documents and materials, if any,
produced by the prosecution. The provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure do not give any right to the
accused to produce any document at the stage of
framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is
to be confined to the material produced by the
investigating agency. The primary consideration at the
stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a
prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of
materials on record need not be gone into. At the stage
…..28/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
28
of entertaining the application for discharge under
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court
cannot analyze or direct the evidence of the prosecution
and defence or the points or possible cross examination
of the defence. The case of the prosecution is to be
accepted as it is.
34. In the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar
Samal and anr, reported in (1973)3 SCC 4, the Hon’ble
Apex Court considered the scope of Section 227 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. After adverting to the
various decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
enumerated the following principles:
“(1) That the Judge while considering the
question of framing the charges under section
227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift
and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of…..29/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
29
finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court
disclose grave suspicion against the accused
which has not been properly explained the Court
will be, fully justified in framing a charge and
proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case
would naturally depend upon the facts of each
case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of
universal application. By and large however if
two views are equally possible and the Judge is
satisfied that the evidence produced before him
while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, he will be fully
within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under
section 227 of the Code the Judge which under
the present Code is a senior and experienced
Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a
…..30/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
30
mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the
total effect of the evidence and the documents
produced before the Court, any basic infirmities
appearing in the case and so on. This however
does not mean that the Judge should make a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial.”
35. After having sifting and weighing the evidence on
record, it is clear that the applicant was serving as “public
servant” and while discharging duty as a “public servant”,
he demanded and accepted the gratification amount.
Thus, there is an ample material to frame the charge
against the applicant. The evidence is to be weighted for
the limited purpose to find out whether a prima facie
case against the applicant is made out or not and,
therefore, after applying the test, the material on record is
…..31/-
Judgment
409 revn36. 17
31
sufficient to frame the charge against the applicant.
Learned Judge of the trial court has considered the
material on record and has rightly rejected the
application.
36. The revision being devoid of merits is liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.
37. The interim order in operation is vacated.
Rule stands discharged.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
!! BrWankhede !!
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge …../-
Date: 18/06/2025 11:53:29