A. K. Sreekumar v. Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau: Members of a Charitable Society which Runs a College are Tractable to Prevention of Corruption Act

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Preface

A. K. Sreekumar v. Director, Vigilance And Anti Corruption Bureau (K Babu, J.), 12 Dec, 2024 (Ker) considered whether selling the ‘Government-seats’ to private students after receiving huge capitation amount, and its misappropriation, by the members of a charitable society, attract the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The court found –

  • the allegations fall under ‘public duty’ (as defined in Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) to attract Section 13 of the Act; and
  • prior approval under Section 17A of the P.C. Act is not necessary for the court to invoke its provisions.  

Facts of the case:

  • The petitioner alleged a conspiracy among the members of a charitable society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, which runs a college.
  • The suspected persons, in furtherance of their common intention, denied admission to eligible students in the Pharmacy College in the Government seats and sold the said seats to private students after receiving a huge capitation amount and misappropriated the amount so obtained to their credit causing wrongful loss to the society and wrongful monetary gain to them.
  • It is in violation of Section 5 read with Section 15 of the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee & Other Measures to Ensure Equity & Excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006.
  • Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
  • The Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau (VACB) refused to take action on the complaint.
  • Thereon, the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, and prayed for conducting an inquiry under Section 202 or for a direction to conduct investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.  
  • The Special Judge posted the matter for report from the VACB.
  • The VACB took the stand – approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 from the competent authority is required.
  • The petitioner thereafter filed an application seeking investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
  • The Special Court dismissed the prayer and adjourned the matter, instructing the petitioner/complainant to produce Section 17A approval under the PC Act.
  • The Vigilance submitted an application seeking prior approval from the competent authority.
  • The Government, by Ext.P5 decision, took the stand that no vigilance enquiry was to be conducted. The reason showed was that the allegations had already been referred to the Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education.
  • The petitioner challenged the legality of the order passed by the Government (Ext.P5).

Relevant legal Provisions

Section 2(b) of the P.C. Act defines ‘public duty’ as follows:-

  • “public duty” means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest.”

Section 2(c) defines ‘public servant’.

  • (c) “public servant” means,-
  • (i) … (to) (vii) ….
  • (viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty;……”

Section 17A of the PC Act provides –

  • no police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the PC Act without prior approval from appropriate authority. 

Legal Issues

  • Whether the allegations attract a ‘public duty’ and
  • Whether prior approval under Section 17A P.C. Act is necessary.

Findings of Court:

1. “ ‘Public duty’ as defined in Section 2(b) of the PC Act, means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest. Thus a ‘public servant’ must be under the positive command of a State law or valid executive direction to discharge such a ‘public duty’. If a body or a corporation exercises a State function under the obligation of the existing laws, it is to be treated as a discharge of ‘public duty’.”

Rulings relied on

  • Karthikeya Varma v. Union of India, 2015 KHC 567 (distinguished).
  • Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell v. Ramesh Gelli and Others [(2016) 3 SCC 788],
  • P.V.Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) [(1998) 4 SCC 626],
  • Manish Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 14 SCC 420]
  • Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2016) 7 SCC 353],
  • K.Veeraswami v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 655],
  • State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah (AIR 2020 SC 2203),
  • Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh [(2012) 3 SCC 64],

2. The approval under Section 17A of the PC Act arises only when the offence is relatable to any recommendation made or it is a decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties. So, this Court is of the view that prior approval, as provided in Section 17A, is not applicable (for investigation) in the present facts.

Rulings relied on

  • Sankarabhat and Others v. State of Kerala (2021 (5) KHC 248) and
  • Venugopal V. and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (2021 KHC 565)

Result:

  • Ext. P5 order (no vigilance enquiry be conducted, for the allegations had already been referred to the Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education) is quashed.
  • Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the matter.

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – How to Subscribe free 


Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Land LawsTransfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Leave a Comment