Kalyan Chakravarthi Y.O. v. State Of Karnataka

K.N Keshavanarayana, J.:— Petitioner was appointed as licensed surveyor under Section 18(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act on 24.02.2011 One G.N Yellappa S/o Chikkanarayanappa lodged a report to the Lokayuktha Police against the petitioner herein alleging that the petitioner demanded an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as bribe for giving survey sketch in respect of his land. On the basis of the complaint, case was registered and successful trap was laid. Petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant. Petitioner was arrested and later released on bail. In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner has sought for quashing FIR registered in crime No. 1/2011 and the investigation thereon interalia on the ground that he in not a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “PC Act”), as such, the Lokayuktha authority could lay a trap nor it can be proceeded under the PC Act against the petitioner, as such, investigation commanded is without jurisdiction.

2. Upon service of notice respondent has appeared through Advocate and statement of objections have filed.

3. I have heard both sides. Perused the materials produced.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought the attention of this Court to the definition of public servant as contained in sub clause (i) and (viii) of Clause (c) of Section 2 of PC Act, to contend that the petitioner is not a pubic servant Section 2(c)(i) and (viii) read as under:

“Section 2(c)(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;

Section 2(c)(viii): any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty;”

5. Reading of the aforesaid provision, indicate that any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees, would fall within the definition of Public Servant. As per sub clause (viii) if any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty also fall within, the definition of public servant. No doubt in the case on hand, petitioner having been appointed as licensed surveyor under Section 18(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot be said as a person in the service of Government or pay of the Government. However, persons like petitioner appointed as licensed surveyor are remunerated by the Government by fees as is evident from the provisions of the Rule 46(E) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1999. Fee payable to the work rendered by the licensed surveyor is fixed by the Government and for the work turned out by such licensed surveyor, they are remunerated by the fee prescribed under Rule 46(E). The licensed surveyor hold an office by virtue of such appointments and he is authorised or required to perform public duty of conducting survey and preparing survey sketches. Therefore, in my considered opinion, licensed surveyor appointed under Section 18(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act would be public servant within the meaning of sub clause (i) and (viii) of Clause (c) of Section 2 of the PC Act. Explanations (1) and (2) to Section 2 makes this position further clear. As per explanation (1), persons falling under any of the above sub-clauses are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not. As per explanation (2), whenever the words “Public Servant” occur, they shall be understood as every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a public servant, whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that situation. Thus from the above explanations, it is clear that even if a person it not appointed by the Government and if he falls within any one of the category mentioned in sub clause (i) to (xii) of clause (c) of Section 2, they would answer to the definition of Public Servant.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 15283/2011 rendered in Circuit Bench at Gulbarga on 23.05.2011 Perusal of the copy of the order in the said case indicates that the petitioner therein was also licensed surveyor appointed under Section 18(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Allegations against the petitioner therein was that fee complainant approached him for surveying his land and the petitioner therein alleged to have demanded for Rs. 6,000/- for conducting survey and ultimately, he agreed to do the work on payment of Rs. 4,500/-. However, the complainant not willing to pay the said amount, lodged a report to the Lokayukta Police and sought action against the petitioner therein. This Court referring to sub clause (i) and (viii) of Clause (c) of Section 2 held that the petitioner is not paid or remunerated fay the Government as such he is not a public servant. However, in the said decision, the fact that, the remuneration of the licensed surveyor is prescribed by the fee as per the Rules framed under Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and in the light of said rules, whether such person would fall within the category of sub-clause (i) and (viii) clause (c) of Section 2, has not been considered. In addition to this, effect of explanations (1) and (2) has also not been considered in the said decision. In addition to this, in the case on hand, prosecution has alleged that the petitioner is being proceeded for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the PC Act and since offence under Section 8 is not restricted to public servant, the decision in the aforesaid case is not applicable to the facts of the case. In this view of the matter, no sustenance can be drawn from the said decision. In view of the fact that there are prima facie materials to indicate that the petitioner is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act, and since the materials on record prima facie indicates that, he demanded bribe from the complainant for doing public duty and he was caught red handed while accepting the illegal gratification from the complainant, there are no grounds to quash the investigation or the FIR. I find no grounds to entertain this petition.

7. In the result petition is dismissed.