The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dismissed the discharge application of the accused, holding that a contractual psychiatrist working as a consulting member of a government medical board is a “public servant” for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA).
The case arose out of an application filed by Dr. Mangesh Prabhakar Rathod, a psychiatrist accused of accepting a bribe of Rs. 200 in July 2015 while performing public duties. He sought discharge from criminal proceedings on the ground that his term of appointment as a consultant had expired before the incident, so he was not a “public servant” on the material date. His main claim was that since his contractual engagement with the District Civil Surgeon’s office as medical board member ended on 31 March 2015, he was not liable under PCA.
The Special (Anti-Corruption) Court at Washim rejected the applicant’s discharge petition, and he challenged this order before the High Court. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, while acting as a psychiatrist-member of the government’s Medical Board, demanded and accepted a bribe from the complainant in July 2015 for issuing a medical certificate.
The board had orally extended his services after his earlier contractual period lapsed. A successful trap led to his arrest at his private clinic. The applicant argued that after March 2015, he neither received remuneration nor official appointment, so he could not be prosecuted as a public servant. The prosecution produced a certificate dated 22 July 2015, bearing his signature as consultant member, showing his public functions at the relevant time.
The applicant’s counsel argued that the absence of a “master-servant” relationship excluded him from the category of public servant.
The Bench comprising Justice Rajnish R. Vyas held that issuing certificates for disabled persons, even after lapse of formal contractual appointment, constitutes a “public duty,” and supporting documents and civil surgeon’s statement corroborated continued involvement. The lack of continued payment did not preclude public servant status.
The Court found that PCA defines “public servant” to include persons required to perform a public duty, whether or not they are on formal payroll. The judgment highlighted continued active service after expiry of term, and emphasized performance of public functions as the critical consideration. The Court clarified that whether fees claimed were for legitimate services or bribe, must be decided at trial, not discharge stage.
In result, the application for discharge was dismissed. The matter is to proceed to trial.
Appearances:
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. H.D. Marathe, APP for State.
