1. Heard. Admit. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.

2. The State has challenged the order dated 25/04/2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur below Exh.14 in Special (ACB) No.19/2026, whereby the application for discharge filed by the respondent herein came to be allowed.

3. Mr. Ghurde, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant/State submits that the order passed below Exh.14 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Special A.C.B. No.19/2016 is passed only on the ground that the respondent herein is not a public servant and as such the respondent could not be tried in the crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as “P.C. Act”). This, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is contrary to the settled position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Nallammal and another Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 559. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is erroneous and illegal, hence, needs to be interfered with by this Court and the same needs to be quashed and set aside.

4. As against this, Mr. Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent could not have been discharged only on the ground that he was not a public servant, as defined under the P.C. Act, however, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to take into consideration the merits of the matter as to whether sufficient evidence is there to proceed against the applicant, hence, the mater may be remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to decide the discharge application on merits.

5. I have gone through the impugned order dated 25/04/2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Perusal of the same shows that the only consideration on which the application came to be allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that the respondent herein was not a public servant and as such, the provisions of Section 7, 12 and 13 of the P.C. Act would not get attracted against the respondent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Nallammal (supra) which is consistently followed in subsequent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under :-

                    “10. Thus, clause (b) of the sub-section encompasses the offences committed in conspiracy with others or by abetment of "any of the offences" punishable under the PC Act. If such conspiracy or abetment of "any of the offences" punishable under the PC Act can be tried "only by the Special Judge, it is inconceivable that the abettor or the conspirator can be delinked from the delinquent public servant for the purpose of trial of the offence. If a non-public servant is also a member of the criminal conspiracy for a public servant to commit any offence under the PC Act, or if such non-public servant has abetted any of the offences which the public servant commits, such non-public servant is also liable to be tried along with the public servant before the Court of a Special Judge having jurisdiction in the matter.”

6. Thus, even the private individuals, who are involved in corruption cases along with public servants, are liable to be tried under the P.C. Act. If a non-public servant abets any offences, which the public servant commits, such non-public servant is also liable to be tried along with the public servant before the Court of Sessions Judge under the provisions of P.C. Act.

7. Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as under :-

                    “12. Punishment for abetment of offences.- Whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act, whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”

8. From the plain reading of the provision of Section 12 of the P.C. Act and the principles laid down in the judgments, cited herein above, the applicant’s case definitely falls under the definition of Section 12 of the P.C. Act.

9. Thus, in view of the settled position of law, the accused, who is not a public servant, can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13 of the P.C. Act. The impugned order ignoring the aforesaid settled law is thus required to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur is erroneous and calls for interference of this Court. However, it appears that even though the application came to be allowed only on the ground that the respondent is not a public servant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not decided the application for discharge on its own merits. In that view of the matter, it appears that the matter needs to be remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to decide the application for discharge on its own merits. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order :-

ORDER

(i) Criminal Revision Application is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 25/04/2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur below Exh.14 in Special (ACB) No.19/2026 is quashed and set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur to decide the application for discharge afresh on merits.

(iv) Applicant is directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 05/10/2026.

(v) The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall make an endeavour to decide the application expeditiously and not beyond a period of one month.

(vi) Since the trial is of the year 2016, the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall also make an endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of eight months from the date of passing of this order.