K. Sreedhar Rao, J.:— The petitioner is a licensed surveyor under Section 18(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The provisions of Section 18(A) are extracted hereunder for convenient reference:
“18-A. Appointment of Licensed Surveyors- (1) The Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records may, for the purposes of the third proviso to Section 128 and of clause (c) of Section 131, issue, with the prior approval of the State Government and subject to such conditions and restrictions and in such manner as may be prescribed, a licence to any person (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Licensed Surveyor’) possessing the prescribed qualifications and experience.
(2) The fee payable to a Licensed Surveyor shall be as may be prescribed.”
2. One Parashuram an agriculturist approached the petitioner for survey of his lands. The petitioner said to have demanded Rs. 6,000/- for conducting the survey and to do the necessary consequential acts of poding. Parashuram - the complainant was not willing to pay Rs. 6,000/-. There was a bargain. The petitioner finally agreed to do the work on payment of Rs. 4,500/-, The complainant, who was not willing to pay the said money, gave a complaint to the Lokayukta Police alleging the above said facts.
3. The Lokayukta Police registered the FIR on the basis of the complaint submitted by Parashuram. A trap is laid successfully, in which the petitioner said to have been caught red handed for accepting Rs. 4,500/- from the complainant. The investigation is not complete and final report yet to be filed. The petitioner filed the petition for quashing the FIR on the ground that the petitioner is not a public servant within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that no proceedings can be initiated against him under the said Act.
4. Sri. A. Syed Habeeb, learned SPP for Lokayukta strenuously submitted that the petitioner is a licensed surveyor and he is a public servant. The petitioner was entitled to receive only Rs. 300/- for the work of survey which is prescribed by the Government. The petitioner on the other hand demanded excess money, which amounts to an illegal gratification. The respondent has prima facie established the demand and acceptance of the bribe. Hence resisted the petition stoutly.
5. The provisions of Section 2(c) (i) and Section 2(c)(viii) are extracted hereunder for convenient reference:
“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;”
6. The other provisions of Section 2 (c) are not germane for consideration since the said provision has on bearing on the facts of the case.
7. In the instant case the petitioner is not paid or remunerated by the Government. He is only a licensed surveyor. The petitioner also cannot be said to hold a public office within the meaning of Section 2(c)(viii). The petitioner being a licensed surveyor, if he is charging the fee in excess of the prescribed fee, the authorities concerned can revoke his licence. The illegal demand of excess fee for conducting survey would only enure civil consequence of revoking the licence and at any rate the petitioner cannot be considered as a public servant and he cannot be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
8. In that view, petition is allowed, proceedings are quashed, consequently the F.I.R is quashed.