Quashing FIR lodged under prevention of corruption act against other than public servant

FIR lodged under prevention of corruption act against other than public servant. I am working under a service provider agency which is hired by the rural department for providing different experts for inspection of work conducted under the public works department rural areas. A work order given to a firm in December 2022 for completion […]

FIR lodged under prevention of corruption act against other than public servant. I am working under a service provider agency which is hired by the rural department for providing different experts for inspection of work conducted under the public works department rural areas. A work order given to a firm in December 2022 for completion of check dams in the rural area prone to flood. After completion of construction that firm has to obtain a completion certificate cum quality certificate from me. I have inspected the work done by the said firm and found so many anomalies in respect of quality and measurement of the work, then stopped the further proceeding. He contacted the anti-corruption bureau and caught me in a false trap. Now an FIR has been lodged and I am arrested. Can I challenge the FIR because I am not a public servant?

Asked from: Uttar Pradesh

You cannot challenge the legality of the First Information Report solely on the basis that you are not a public servant. You are an outsourced employee working in the department on a contractual basis, with remuneration paid by the government. It is immaterial that the salary has been disbursed by the service provider after receiving funds from the government.

More importantly, you qualify as a public servant due to your involvement in discharging a public duty. Conducting work inspections and issuing completion certificates in accordance with tender specifications falls under the purview of public duty.

Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act) defines "public duty" as a responsibility discharged in the interest of the State, the public, or the community at large.

(b) “public duty” means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest;

Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988

Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 defines public servants. As per sub clause (viii) of clause (c) of Section 2 of the PC Act, any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty is said to be a public servant. 

(viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty

Section 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988

Therefore, you are indeed a public servant, as defined by Sections 2(c) and 2(b) of the PC Act. The construction work for public purposes must adhere to tender terms and conditions in the larger public interest. Your responsibility includes inspecting the work and issuing completion certificates, demonstrating that you are discharging a public duty.

Rather than challenging your status as a public servant, you may seek to quash the FIR by demonstrating that the trap proceedings were false and orchestrated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) team in violation of established procedures. If you have prima facie evidence indicating that you never demanded gratification, not given favour to the contractor for issuing completion certificates and that all proceedings are false and fabricated, the High Court may quash the FIR. For more legal help please visit Kanoon India.

Related

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Related Matters

क्या चेक बाउंस का केस मियाद समाप्त होने के बाद भी दाखिल हो सकता है

Negotiable Instruments Act के अंतर्गत, वैधानिक अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद भी चेक बाउंस का मामला दायर किया जा सकता है। यदि शिकायतकर्ता देरी का उचित कारण प्रस्तुत करता है, तो न्यायालय विलंब को क्षमा कर शिकायत स्वीकार कर सकता है। नोटिस के बाद निर्धारित समय में भुगतान न होने पर कार्यवाही प्रारंभ की जा सकती है।

Cancellation of bail when accused tempering with witness

Seeking the cancellation of bail is possible when an accused person tampers with witnesses or influences a trial. This guide explains legal grounds for such actions, focusing on mandatory procedures under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act and post-bail threats. Learn how victims can approach higher courts to ensure a fair trial and protect their rights.

Evidence of interested witness is admissible in criminal proceedings

In criminal law, the testimony of a related witness cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship with the victim. This legal overview clarifies the distinction between related and interested witnesses, citing key Supreme Court rulings. It explains how natural witnesses provide admissible evidence that reliably forms the basis for a conviction, even without independent corroboration.

SDM cannot attach property under section 146 crpc when civil suit is pending

A Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot legally attach property under Section 146 of the CrPC if a civil suit regarding the same property is already pending. This guide explains why such orders lack jurisdiction and outlines the proper legal remedy, including filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC to the High Court based on established Supreme Court precedents.

Produce Pendrive as Evidence: Legal Process Explained

Legal experts clarify that digital evidence, such as a pen drive, can be produced even at an advanced stage of a criminal trial under Section 294 of the CrPC. If a trial court rejects such material evidence based on timing, the defendant may challenge the order in the High Court to ensure a fair trial and just adjudication.