Karnataka HC: Not Just Good Laws, But Their Effective Enforcement Is Mandatory To Make Our Country Corruption Free

Case Background

• The petitioner has been working as a Project Manager in a Society named Nirmithi Kendra. The object of the Society is to undertake civil construction works assigned by the Government.
• The petitioner was arrested for possessing disproportionate assets under Sections 13(1)(b), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• The petitioner filed a suit under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the said FIR against him and all other proceedings.

Petitioner’s Submissions

• It was submitted that the Respondent has no power to arrest the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act as he is not a public servant.
• The petitioner stated that he was an employee of a Society, and that the concerned Society receives no funds from the Central or State Government/s.
• The petitioner adduced the Gopinath v. The Superintendent of Police, Bijapur & Anr. (2014) case to strengthen the argument.

Respondent’s Submissions

• It was alleged that the Kendra has been receiving funds from the Central/State Government/s, and that the petitioner was engaged in a public duty.
• Since these facts are different from those submitted in the Gopinath case, the Judgement in the latter would not be applicable in the instant case.
• It was further submitted that the definition of the word “public servant” is different in the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Issues Involved

• Whether an employee of a Society like the Nirmithi Kendra is a public servant or not?
• Whether the petitioner, being an employee of the Nirmithi Kendra, can be prosecuted for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

Court’s Order

• The Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea, and held that since the Nirmithi Kendra, in which the petitioner is employed, has been receiving funds from the Government, the petitioner would come under the scope of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• The Learned Judge expressed his anguish over the prevailing corruption in the Country, and opined that in order to eradicate the same, effective enforcement is inevitable besides broad interpretation of the relevant statutes.

What are your views on the case?