Court Rules Additional Public Prosecutors Not Public Servants under Prevention of Corruption Act; No Grounds for Bribe Demand as Appeal Was Already Allowed
In a significant ruling by the Circuit Bench of the Bombay High Court at Kolhapur, the court upheld the discharge of an Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), Dhananjay Sakharam Bhosale, in a corruption case filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh on 12th October 2026, clarified the legal position regarding the status of Additional Public Prosecutors and the maintainability of prosecution under the Act.
The case arose from allegations that the Additional Public Prosecutor demanded a bribe of Rs. 25,000 to favor the complainant in Sessions Case No. 190 of 1997. It was alleged that on 15th January 2004, the complainant agreed to pay an initial amount of Rs. 3,000, with the remaining sum to be paid later. The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) intervened and arranged a trap with two pancha witnesses. The bribe money was marked with anthracene powder for detection purposes. However, when the complainant approached the Additional Public Prosecutor's office, the accused directed the complainant to pay the money to another individual (accused No. 2), who was subsequently apprehended along with the Additional Public Prosecutor.
The Additional Public Prosecutor sought discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that he was not a public servant as defined under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge at Satara agreed, emphasizing that such tenure appointments of Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors do not make them State employees in the same sense as Assistant Public Prosecutors. The judge also noted discrepancies in the statements of the pancha witnesses and the fact that the complainant's appeal had already been allowed prior to the alleged demand, negating any motive for demanding a bribe.
The Bombay High Court concurred with the Special Judge, relying heavily on the Supreme Court's landmark decision in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal (AIR 2004 SC 3800), which held that Additional Public Prosecutors are not public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court underscored that the prosecution was untenable as the accused did not hold the status of a public servant and that the bribe was actually accepted by another accused, not the Additional Public Prosecutor himself.
Further, since the complainant's appeal was allowed three days before the incident, the court found no basis for any demand of bribe to influence the case. The discrepancies in the pancha witnesses' testimonies also weakened the prosecution's case.
The court dismissed the Criminal Revision Application filed by the State of Maharashtra, thereby upholding the discharge order dated 10th March 2008. This judgment provides important clarification on the legal status of Additional Public Prosecutors and reinforces the necessity of a solid factual foundation before initiating corruption prosecutions.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Additional Public Prosecutor is not a public servant for purposes of prosecution under the Act - Where complainant's appeal had already been allowed prior to alleged demand, and tainted amount was accepted by another accused, discharge of Additional Public Prosecutor was upheld.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 21; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 227
