Kanwarjit Singh Kakkar v. State Of Punjab

FACTS

• The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Chandigarh dismissed two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions for quashing FIR No.13 dated 9.4.2003, which was registered for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988 and Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

• The two cases against the appellants (Dr. Kanwarjit Singh Kakkar and Dr. Rajinder Singh Chawla) revealed that they were Medical Officers working with the State Government of Punjab.

• The first information report was registered on the statement of informant Raman Kumar, who claimed to know the appellants.

• The complainant Raman Kumar received medicines from the two doctors, who charged him Rs.100/- as professional fee.

• A raid was conducted on the premises of both doctors, and it was alleged that they could be nabbed doing private practice as they were trapped receiving Rs.100/- as consultation charges from the complainant.

ISSUES

1. Whether a government doctor alleged to be doing private practice can be booked within the ambit and purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act or under the Indian Penal Code?

2. Whether the same would amount to misconduct under the Punjab Civil Medical (State Service Class I) Rules, 1972 under Rule 15?

JUDGEMENT

• The apex court ruled that the High Court's orders were unconstitutional and quashed the FIR No.13 against the appellants.

• The court stated that no prima facie case under Section 168 of the IPC or Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was made under the prevailing facts and circumstances.

• The court deemed that proceeding with the FIR would result in abuse of the court's process and wastage of time and energy.

• The respondent-state, while justified under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, was deemed unfit to sustain the FIR. Both appeals were allowed.

OBSERVATION

• The 'corruption' is acceptance or demand of illegal gratification for doing an official act. We find no difficulty in accepting the submission and endorsing the view that the demand/receipt of fee while doing private practice by itself cannot be held to be an illegal gratification as the same obviously is the amount charged towards professional remuneration.

• It would be preposterous in the courts view to hold that if a doctor charges fee for extending medical help and is doing that by way of his professional duty, the same would amount to illegal gratification as that would be even against the plain common sense.

• The court observed that if a particular professional discharges the duty of a doctor, that by itself is not an offence but becomes an offence by virtue of the fact that it contravenes a bar imposed by a circular or instruction of the government. In that event, the said act clearly would fall within the ambit of misconduct to be dealt with under the Service Rules but would not constitute criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

• In courts considered view, the allegation even as per the FIR as it stands in the instant case, do not constitute an offence either under the Prevention of Corruption Act or under Section 168 of the IPC.

COMMENTARIES

• The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where no criminality is involved in the subject actions, even acts which violate government directions or conduct rules do not constitute an offence either under Section 168 IPC or under P.C. Act.

  • (Referenced: Amit Lodha Versus The State of Bihar and Others LNIND 2024 PAT 18193)