STATE OF PUNJABversusNIRMAL KAUR

                        [2009) 7 S.C.R. 126


A                      STATE OF PUNJAB
                                v.
                         NIRMAL KAUR
                Criminal Appeal No. 866 of 2009
                         APRIL 28, 2009
B
          (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.
       The question involved in this appeal was whether a
0
  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]
       CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
  No. 866 of 2009
H                        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.
                                                                          c
         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').                         D
         3. Factual position in a nutshell needs to be noted.
          Respondent-Nirmal Kaur was running a coaching centre.
    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.
         4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since
    the accused was running a coaching centre, she was carrying
    on public duty.
B
          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;
c         (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
D         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;
E
          (v) any person authorized by a Court of justice to perform
          any duty, in connection with the administration of justice,
          including a liquidator, receiver or commissioner appointed
          by such Court;                                                     •

F         (vi) any arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or
          matter has been referred for decision or report by a Court
          of jus;tice or by a competent public authority.
          (vii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he
          is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise an
G         electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election.       ,..
          (viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he
          is authorized or required to perform any public duty;
          (ix) any person who is president, secretary or other office
H         bearer of a registered co-operative society engaged in
                        STATE OF PUNJAB V. NIRMAL KAUR                       129
                             [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

               agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having A
               received any financial aid from the Central Government or
               a State Government or form any corporation established
               by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or any
               authority or body owned or controlled or aided by the
               Government or a Government company as defined in 8
               Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
               (x) any person who is a chairman, member or employee
               of any Se_rvlce Commission or Boar, by whatever name
               called or a member of any selection committee appointed
               by such Commission or Board for the conduct of any C
I              examination or making any selection on behalf of such
               Commission or Board;
                (xi) any person who is a Vice-Chancellor or member of
                any governing body, professor, reader, lecturer or any other
                teacher or employee by whatever designation called, of D
                any University and any person whose services have been
                availed of by a University or any other public authority in
                connection with holding or conducting examinations;
                (xii) any person who is an office-bearer or an employee of
                an educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution,   E
                in whatever manner established, receiving or having
               _received any financial assistance from the Central
                Government or any State Government or local or other
                public authbrity."
                                                                                     F
              6. Stand of the appellant-State is that in any event by
        running coaching centre, the respondent was performing public
        duty. The submission overlooks basic requirement of clause (vii)
        of Section 2(c) which is applicable only when a public servant
        holds an office by which he authorized or required to perform
        any public duty. In the instant case it is nobody's case that the G
    ~   respondent was holding an office by virtue of which she was
        authorized to perform any public duty. That being so there is no
        merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
        G.N.                                               Appeal dismissed.