19.08.2026 Sl. No.12 Ct. No.237 S.A. CRR 2346 of 2026 Debdeep Bhattacharjee @ Papun -vs- The State of West Bengal Mr. Shantanu Talukdar Ms. Moumita Pandit Ms. Ritushree Banerjee Ms. Olivia Dutta …for the petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. P.P. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta …for the State By filing the present application, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings in connection with SPL. T.R. No. 10 of 2025, arising out of G.R. Case No. 2385 of 2025, Raiganj Police Station Case No. 1050 of 2025 dated September 14, 2025, and Charge- Sheet No. 1476 of 2025, under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, “BNS”), 2023, read with Sections 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It appears that the aforesaid case was initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector, Uttar Dinajpur, on September 14, 2025, before the Officer-in- Charge, Raiganj Police Station, alleging misappropriation of Government funds amounting to approximately Rs. 4.42 crores by the Head Clerk, who was holding the post of Cashier in the Nazareth Section of the Office of the District Magistrate, Uttar Dinajpur, along with the petitioner, who was working as a contractual Data Entry 2 Operator in the Land Acquisition Section of the Office of the District Magistrate, and other accused persons. It was alleged in the complaint that, upon verification of the accounts, it was found that the said Cashier, with the assistance of the other accused persons, had dishonestly misappropriated Government funds from the official bank account maintained in the name of “District Anaemia Control Account” to various bank accounts of the petitioner and the other accused persons. It was further alleged that all the accused persons had conspired together to cause wrongful loss to the Government by manipulating cash books, vouchers, withdrawal entries and bank advices, and by forging signatures, with the intention of misappropriating Government funds. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner and the other accused persons. Thereafter, by an order dated January 20, 2026, the learned Judge, Special Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, framed charges against the accused persons, including the petitioner, under the aforesaid provisions of law. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a contractual Data Entry Operator and was neither a Government employee nor on the pay-roll of the Government. He was engaged through an agency, namely, Graphic Infotech. There was neither any direct contractual relationship between the petitioner and the Government nor any employer-employee relationship between them. It is, therefore, submitted that no charge could have been framed against the petitioner either under Section 3 316(5) of the BNS, 2023, or under Sections 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Pawan Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the State, opposes the prayer of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was acting as an agent and, therefore, the aforesaid penal provisions are applicable to him. The controversy raised by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties can be resolved with reference to the definition of “public servant” contained in Section 2(28)(k) of the BNS, 2023, along with the Explanation thereto, which reads as follows: “2. Definitions.– In this Sanhita, unless the context otherwise requires, – ……. (28) “public servant” means a person falling under any of the descriptions, namely: – ……. (k) every person – (i) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government; ….. Explanation – (a) persons falling under any of the descriptions made in this clause are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not; …..” The aforesaid definition makes it clear that a person who is remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government would fall within the definition of “public servant” under the BNS, 2023. 4 Mr. Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the State, has rightly pointed out that Explanation (a) to the aforesaid provision further makes it clear that a person may be regarded as a public servant notwithstanding the fact that he has not been appointed by the Government. In the present case, the petitioner was engaged as a contractual Data Entry Operator through an agency. There cannot be any dispute that the remuneration paid to the petitioner was ultimately borne by the Government exchequer and was paid through the contractor. In such circumstances, in my view, the petitioner falls within the definition of “public servant”. For the same reason, the petitioner would also fall within the definition of “public servant” under Section 2(c)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which defines “public servant”, inter alia, as follows: “2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, – …… (c) “public servant” means, – (i) any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty.” I also find no merit in the submission of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was not discharging any public duty and, therefore, could not be prosecuted under the aforesaid penal provisions. Indisputably, the petitioner was working in the Land Acquisition Section of the Office of the District Magistrate as a Data Entry Operator, and the functions performed 5 by him were a public duty. The mere fact that the petitioner was engaged through a contractor does not, by itself, detract from the public character of the duties discharged by him. Accordingly, WPA 2346 of 2026 is dismissed. Needless to mention, dismissal of the present application shall not preclude the petitioner from raising all points available to him in law at the stage of trial. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.)