Delhi High Court Rules: Insolvency Resolution Professionals Are Not Deemed ‘Public Servants’ According to the Prevention of Corruption Act
Case: DR. ARUN MOHAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Coram: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 544/2020
Court Observation: “Merely because the IP is vested with certain roles, responsibilities and duties which could partake the nature of “public duties”, it is not a necessary conclusion or a definite inference that the same are being discharged in the nature of “public character”
“In view of the above and in the considered opinion of this Court, an Insolvency Professional does not fall within the meaning of “public servant” as ascribed in any of the clauses of sub-section (c ) of section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Resultantly, the FIR..registered by the respondent no.1/CBI is quashed and set aside,”
“It is also trite that the Courts would lean in favour of Constitutionality of the provisions of any enactment and would be loath in drawing conclusions against it, without any cogent and relevant material. Considering both the aforesaid Sections, it can be safely said that the omission in Section 232 was not inadvertent but a deliberate omission to not include IP within its ambit,”
“Resultantly, the omission to include IP in section 232 IBC is not inadvertent but a thoughtful, willful and deliberate one by the Legislature, and the Courts of law being empowered to interpret the same, ought not to legislate or supply casus omissus, which in any case is prohibited,”
“Whether the IP is or is not a “public servant” according to IBC or PC Act 1988 or Section 21 IPC, 1860, is purely the domain of the Legislature and if required and necessitated, the legislature may carry out necessary amendments to the legislations.”
Previous Posts
Keywords
Delhi High Court Rules, Public Servants, Prevention of Corruption Act