Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court recently held that a non-public servant can face prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act if he is alleged to have abetted an offence committed by a public servant.




Justice Mehroz Pathan , while allowing a revision application filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) through public prosecutor JY Ghurde, quashed an order of the Additional Sessions Court here, which had discharged a Mouda farmer on the ground that he was not a public servant.




The court relied on Supreme Court’s ruling in P Nallammal versus State, which held that a non-public servant involved in a conspiracy with, or abetting, a public servant in an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be tried along with the public servant before the Special Judge.




Justice Pathan noted that Section 12 of the Act specifically provides punishment for abetment of offences under the legislation, irrespective of whether the offence is ultimately committed in consequence of such abetment. The provision carries imprisonment of three to seven years and a fine.




The ACB deputy superintendent of police had challenged the April 25, 2019, order by which the sessions court had allowed the accused’s discharge application. The state argued that the discharge was based solely on the finding that the accused was not a public servant and therefore Sections 7, 12 and 13 of the Corruption Act did not apply.




The accused’s senior counsel also contended that the matter should be remanded because the trial court had not examined the merits of the discharge application, including whether sufficient evidence existed to proceed against him.




Justice Pathan agreed that the discharge order could not stand but also found that the trial court had not examined the application on its merits. The high court, therefore, remanded the matter to the additional sessions judge for a fresh decision.




The accused has been directed to appear before the trial court. The judge asked the trial court to decide the discharge application expeditiously, preferably within a month.




Noting that the trial dates back to 2016, Justice Pathan further directed the trial court to endeavour to conclude the trial within eight months.