Kerala High Court : Office-Bearer Of Govt-Aided Social Or Cultural Institution Is Public Servant Under PC Act | Dismisses Discharge Plea In CBI Graft Case Over Teacher Appointments
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed a revision petition filed by the third accused challenging the trial court’s order that declined his discharge in a CBI case involving bribery and forgery in teacher appointments. The Court held that the petitioner, as President of an institution receiving government grants, falls within the statutory definition of a public servant under Section 2(c)(xii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, the Court upheld the framing of charges against him and directed the trial to proceed without delay.
The matter arose from proceedings in C.C. No. 43 of 2014 before the Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI Cases)–III, Ernakulam, in which the third accused—President of the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Kerala), Chittoor Road, Ernakulam—was charged along with three others. The Central Bureau of Investigation had registered Crime No. RC 32(A)/2011 in relation to alleged irregularities and bribe-taking in teacher appointments at Mahatma Gandhi Public School, Chottanikkara, a school run by the said Sabha.
The prosecution alleged that accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4—functionaries of the Sabha—along with the second accused, a private individual, conspired to receive illegal gratification from three persons in exchange for appointments. Specifically, it was alleged that the first accused received ₹4,00,000 from Preethi Anilkumar, ₹2,00,000 from Judy Joseph, and ₹1,00,000 from her father Joseph Karrot, promising their appointments as Chemistry and English teachers, respectively. The second accused was said to have instigated the payment.
Further, it was alleged that accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4 fabricated score sheets and meeting records of the Interview Board and Executive Committee to facilitate these appointments. The prosecution claimed this falsification was part of a larger conspiracy to displace meritorious candidates in favour of those who had paid bribes. The charges included Sections 477A, 471, 417, 420, and 201 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking discharge and challenging the trial court’s decision dated 10.03.2025, which had framed charges against him.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Sabha was not a public institution and the petitioner was not a public servant as defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was also pointed out that only the first accused was alleged to have received bribes, and no direct benefit or gratification was attributed to the petitioner. Further, it was contended that sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act had been obtained only in respect of the fourth accused and not the petitioner.
The CBI, through its Standing Counsel, opposed the petition, asserting that the Sabha was governed by the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha Act, 1964, and received financial assistance from the Central Government. It was submitted that the petitioner, as President of the Sabha, was a public servant under Section 2(c)(xii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which covers office-bearers of institutions receiving government grants.
Documentary evidence was produced to show that the Sabha had received substantial financial assistance during the years 2008–2012. Specific allocations, including honoraria, books, allowances, and infrastructure funding, were cited from records and letters dated 18.05.2012 and related to grant-in-aid from the Central Hindi Directorate.
Based on these submissions and records, the CBI argued that the petitioner and other office-bearers fell squarely within the definition of public servants and were liable for prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The agency also submitted that the conspiracy and document falsification charges warranted framing of charges under the IPC.
The Court began by examining the core issue: “The question to be decided is, whether the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Kerala), is an educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution, receiving or having received any financial assistance from the Central Government... and the petitioner herein, who is the President of the Sabha to be adjudged as public servant within the purview of Section 2(c)(xii) of the P.C. Act?”
Referring to Section 2(c)(xii), the Court quoted: “Any person who is an office-bearer or an employee of an educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution, in whatever manner established, receiving or having received any financial assistance from the Central Government... is a public servant.”
The Court recorded: “Explanation 1 to Section 2 of the P.C. Act clarifies that, persons falling under any of the sub-clauses are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not.”
The Court considered evidence of financial assistance to the Sabha, noting: “The Central Government granted ₹31,32,900, ₹1,77,000, ₹31,32,900, ₹1,82,000, ₹31,32,000, and ₹1,82,000 from the period 2008–2009 till 2010–2011.”
It further stated: “The Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Kerala) has been receiving or having received financial assistance from the Central Government and the petitioner and accused Nos.1 and 4 are the office-bearers of the said Sabha... Therefore, the contention... that the petitioner would not come under the purview of a public servant under the P.C. Act would not succeed.”
Regarding the applicability of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court referred to Section 7, noting: “Section 7 of the P.C. Act contemplates that, whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant... accepts or obtains... any gratification... as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act...”
As for Section 13(1)(d), the Court recorded: “A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, if he... obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage... by abusing his position.”
The Court concluded that the allegations of interview manipulation and document forgery, if proved, could establish the petitioner’s complicity: “The prosecution records produced... would show that, prima facie, the allegation against the petitioner is made out warranting trial... the said order finding that there are sufficient materials to form an opinion that there was ground for presuming the guilt of the accused, is not liable to be interfered.”
In conclusion, the Court issued the following directives in its order dated 07.07.2025: “In the result, this criminal revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, with liberty to the trial court to proceed with trial of the matter, without fail.”
“Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court, forthwith, for information and further steps.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Geo Paul, Sri. C.R. Pramod, Shri. Jacob George Pallath, Shri. Harikrishnan A.S., Shri. Akshai K.R., Shri. C.B. Gautham, Smt. Mariyam Mathews
For the Respondents: Sreelal N. Warrier, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
Case Title: M.S. Muraleedharan v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Number: Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 421 of 2025
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen
