ORDER : This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 17 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Chennai, as against the petitioner herein, raising the ground that the complaint is not in conformity with Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'PC Act') and without the jurisdiction of the authority. 2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows- 2-1. The petitioner/accused D. Sampath is a Proprietor of a business concern namely M/s. D.M. Silks and he is doing silk sarees business, at No. 19/59, Karukkinil Amarnthaval Koil Street, Kancheepuram. The defacto-complainant S. Punnikyakotti (2nd respondent herein) is a public servant, working as Accounts Assistant-cum-Store Keeper in Tamil Nadu Zari Ltd., Industrial Estate, Kancheepuram. 2-2. In connection with his silk saree business, the petitioner/accused used to visit the office of the defacto-complainant (R2) to purchase sarees for his businesses activities. During August, 2011, the petitioner/accused voluntarily contacted the defacto-complainant over his mobile-phone and informed him that a vigilance enquiry is being conducted against the defacto-complainant(R2) by the Officers of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department; the petitioner/accused demanded an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs for himself to influence the officials of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department to stop the vigilance enquiry as against the defacto-complainant (R2); While the defacto-complainant told that he had not committed any mistake in his official duties to conduct any vigilance enquiry against him, the petitioner/accused told him that the vigilance enquiry is being conducted in respect of his disproportionate assets. The petitioner/ accused further told the defacto-complainant that he knew the officer in-charge of the enquiry of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department and as such, he would settle the matter amicably. The petitioner/accused further warned the defacto-complainant that if he fails to give the demanded amount, he would be arrested and his house would also be raided by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption officers. Believing the words of the petitioner/accused to be true, the defacto-complainant agreed to give Rs.5 lakhs. Consequently, the defacto-complainant met the petitioner/accused at his residence on 03.09.2011 at about 9.00 hours and gave the said amount of Rs.5 lakhs in cash. Believing the words of the petitioner/accused to be true, the defacto-complainant agreed to give Rs.5 lakhs. Consequently, the defacto-complainant met the petitioner/accused at his residence on 03.09.2011 at about 9.00 hours and gave the said amount of Rs.5 lakhs in cash. The petitioner/accused accepted the demanded amount of Rs.5 lakhs and assured that he would stop the enquiry by influencing the officers of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department at Kancheepuram Office. 2-3. After a few months, on 20.03.2012 at about 19.30 hours, the petitioner/accused again contacted the defacto-complainant over his mobile phone and further demanded Rs.2 lakhs in continuation of his earlier demand. When the defacto-complainant expressed his inability to give the demanded amount, the accused asked the defacto-complainant to give Rs.10,000/- as part payment and instructed him to give the remaining amount in the subsequent days. The petitioner/accused instructed the defacto-complainant to come and meet him near the Light House, Marina Beach, Chennai on 21.03.2012 at about 14.00 hours and give the demanded amount of Rs.10,000/-. But, the defacto-complainant was not willing to give the bribe amount; hence, he preferred a written complaint, based on which a case in Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Headquarters Cr.No.03/2012/AC/HQ, under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner/accused on 21.03.2012. 2-4. Thereafter, a special team was formed to trap the petitioner/accused and his incoming and outgoing calls were traced with the help of mobile service provider and his movements to various places were also kept under surveillance by getting tower locations. The phone contacts between the petitioner/accused and the defacto-complainant were recorded. Trap formalities were followed and the petitioner/accused was caught red handed while accepting the demanded amount and the tainted money was recovered from the petitioner/accused and he was arrested and was sent for judicial custody. Thereafter, after observing all the formalities and after completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner before the Special Court for the cases under the PC Act at Chennai and the same was taken on file as C.C. No. 17 of 2015 for the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 420 IPC. 2-5. Now, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition seeking to quash the charge-sheet filed against him. 3. 2-5. Now, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition seeking to quash the charge-sheet filed against him. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defacto-complainant is a public servant, who is said to have given Rs. 5 lakhs in the house of the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- after six months at Chennai to the petitioner/private individual, for the purpose of getting over an enquiry said to have been pending on the file of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department, in relation to disproportionate assets case against him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, with regard to the illegal gratification, the complaint by a public servant against a private person is not maintainable in law in terms of the PC Act. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to Section 8 of the PC Act, which is extracted hereunder- 8. Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant:- Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant, whether named or otherwise, to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the words 'from any person' mentioned in Section 8 of the PC Act, do not comprise the 'public servant', who is not competent enough to make a compliant against a third party/non-public servant. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the words 'from any person' mentioned in Section 8 of the PC Act, do not comprise the 'public servant', who is not competent enough to make a compliant against a third party/non-public servant. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited the attention of this Court to Section 2(c) of the PC Act, which defines 'public servant', wherein it is made very clear in explanation 2 as wherever the words 'public servant' occur, they shall be understood of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of the public servant whatever legal effect that may be in his right to hold that situation. But, nowhere the word 'person' is defined in the PC Act particularly, in terms of Section 8 of the PC Act. 4. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the words 'from any person' envisaged in Section 8 of the PC Act would indicate only an independent/private person. In other words, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 8 of the PC Act is intended to deal firmly with the menace of unscrupulous middlemen or contact agents, also called 'touts' claiming to have influence with the highly placed corrupt public servants. If the Tout or middleman accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification, then only Section 8 of the Act would attract. In the instant case, the allegation made by the defacto-complainant/public servant against the petitioner herein/private person is that to induce another public servant, the petitioner/private person demanded bribe from the defacto-complainant/public servant. In the absence of any definition for the word 'person' in the PC Act, the public servant will not fit in within the meaning of 'any person' as envisaged in Section 8 of the PC Act. 5. It is further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the word 'person' has been defined in Section 11 of IPC, which includes any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. But, the word 'person' does not include 'public servant' and the same is also very clear in terms of Section 24 of the Prevent of Corruption Act, which reads as follows- "24. But, the word 'person' does not include 'public servant' and the same is also very clear in terms of Section 24 of the Prevent of Corruption Act, which reads as follows- "24. Statement by bribe giver not to subject him to prosecution: - Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by a person in any proceeding against a public servant for an offence under sections 7 to 11 or under section 13 or section 15, that he offered or agreed to offer any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing to the public servant, shall not subject such person to a prosecution under section 12. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on analysis of the above provision, the bribe giver should not be a 'public servant' to attract the offence under Section 8 of the PC Act. In the instant case, the defacto-complainant/bribe giver, being a public servant, cannot invoke the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Even if the public servant/defacto-complainant is really aggrieved in respect of inducement of cheating said to have been committed by the accused/petitioner, the complaint should have been made by him only under the general law and he cannot invoke the provisions of the PC Act, which is a special Act. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment reported in 1975 AIR (SC) 1835 [The State of M.P. Vs. M.V. Narasimhan] and submitted that since the word 'person' is not defined in PC Act, applying Section 11 IPC, it is understood that 'public servant', bribe giver, cannot be understood as 'person' in terms of Sections 8 & 24 of PC Act. Therefore, the provision of PC Act is not attracted against the non-public servant. 6. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1991 Cri LJ 2957 [Ramesh Chand Jain and other Vs. State of M.P.], and submitted that even private individuals who are involved in corruption cases along with public servants are liable to be tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1991 Cri LJ 2957 [Ramesh Chand Jain and other Vs. State of M.P.], and submitted that even private individuals who are involved in corruption cases along with public servants are liable to be tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, by relying upon the said decision, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case, the prosecution has been lodged against the non-public servant only, hence, the same is not maintainable in law in the absence of inclusion of public servant. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon another decision reported in 2000 (5) SCC 88 [State of M.P. Vs. Ram Singh] in support of his contention that the law relating to prevention of corruption was essentially made to deal with the public servants, not as understood in common parlance, but specifically defined in the Act; hence, the complaint lodged by the public servant against the non-public servant is not maintainable in law. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision reported in 2006 CriLJ 1599 [Kumar Suman Singh Vs. State of Bihar], wherein it has been held as follows- "As regards applicability of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the facts of the present case, I am to say that this section is applicable even to others who are not public servants if they induce any public servant to do any illegal act which is obvious from a bare reading of the said section. In the present case, the petitioner is alleged to be in conspiracy to induce the public servant to commit the Medical Examination Scam as it appears from the materials as disclosed in the charge sheet at Page 34 of the brief in Cr.Misc.No.34488 of 2005, accordingly, I am of the view that the offence alleged against him ispeim facie made out." The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 8 of the PC Act will apply only if the non-public servant induces any public servant to do any illegal act defined under the PC Act; but, in the instant case, money was received by a private individual from the public servant to induce another public servant. Since the money was received from a public servant by the petitioner/individual, Section 8 of PC Act will not apply. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for quashing the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner. 9. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the words 'from any person' envisaged under Section 8 of PC Act, include the public servant also. Learned Additional Public Prosecution has also relied upon the un-reported decision of this Court in the case of Moulana Vs. State in Crl. O.P. No. 818 of 2013, vide order dated 12.08.2014, in support of his contention that this kind of act of the private individual will clearly attract Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 10. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 11. It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was given by a public servant (defacto-complainant) to a private individual (petitioner herein) to influence another public servant viz., the official of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department, to stop the enquiry against the defacto-complainant that has been initiated against the defacto-complainant with regard to the disproportionate assets. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the words 'from any person' envisaged in Section 8 of PC Act will not cover the 'public servant' because Section 2(c) of the PC Act defines only a 'public servant' and not 'person'. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in the absence of any definition for 'person' in the special Act (PC Act), we have to apply only the definition for the word 'person' envisaged under Section 11 of IPC. Section 11 of IPC reads as follows- "The word "person" includes any Company or Association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not." In my considered opinion, Section 11 of IPC says that apart from the body of persons, any company or Association, whether incorporated or not, is included under the definition of 'person'. In my considered opinion, this definition given under Section 11 of IPC will not be helpful any way to the petitioner to exclude the public servant from the 'person' envisaged under Section 8 of PC Act. In my considered opinion, this definition given under Section 11 of IPC will not be helpful any way to the petitioner to exclude the public servant from the 'person' envisaged under Section 8 of PC Act. The word 'person' as defined under Black Law Dictionary (7th edition), means, as follows- "1) A human being 2) An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. 3) The living body of a human being (contraband found on the smuggler's person). "So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as cap-able of rights and duties. Any being that is so capable is a person, whether a human being or not, and no being that is not so capable is a person, even though he be a man. Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. It is only in this respect that persons possess juridical significance, and this is the exclusive point of view from which personality receives legal recognition." John Salmond, Jurisprudence 318 (Glaville L Williams ed., 10th ed. 1947). In a common parlance, the words 'from any person' would mean from any human being. So far as the legal theory is concerned, a 'person' is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties. In the absence of any definition for 'person' in the PC Act, in my considered opinion, the expression for 'from any person' cannot be restricted only to a particular class of person; but, it has got wide connotation. Therefore, the words 'from any person' envisaged in Section 8 of PC Act will not exclude the public servant. Moreover, the act of giving bribe is not an official duty of a public servant. When that being so, it cannot be said that the words 'from any person' as envisaged in Section 8 will exclude the public servant. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the public servant/bribe giver cannot be understood as 'person' in terms of Section 8 of PC Act. 12. When that being so, it cannot be said that the words 'from any person' as envisaged in Section 8 will exclude the public servant. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the public servant/bribe giver cannot be understood as 'person' in terms of Section 8 of PC Act. 12. Therefore, I am of the opinion that if a tout or middleman accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing any public servant, by corrupt or illegal means, to do or to forbear to do any official act, then Section 8 of PC Act will apply. The status of the person who gives illegal gratification is immaterial. What is relevant under Section 8 of PC Act is that whether the illegal gratification was received by a tout or middleman to induce a public servant or not. 13. With regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Section 24 of the PC Act, I find that Section 24 of PC Act simply conveys the meaning that a statement made by a person in any proceeding against a public servant for an offence under sections 7 to 11 or under section 13 or section 15, that he offered or agreed to offer any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing to the public servant, shall not subject such person to a prosecution under section 12. This provision is no way relevant to come to a conclusion that the word 'from any person' excludes the public servant. 14. In fact, in the case in Prakash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1415, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if a public servant accepts gratification for inducing any public servant to do or to forbear to do any official act, then he would fall in the net of Sections 8 & 9 of PC Act. From the dictum laid down in the said judgment, it could be seen that Section 8 not only covers the private person but also the public servant. From the dictum laid down in the said judgment, it could be seen that Section 8 not only covers the private person but also the public servant. When that being the legal position, the private person cannot be let off merely for the reason that he accepts or attempts or agrees to accept the illegal gratification from a public servant to induce another public servant. Further more, the object of the Prevention of Corruption Act is to deal with the public servants and those who abet them. Therefore, the interpretation of the provision should be in consonance with the object of the Act. In other words, the interpretation of the provision should be to achieve the object of the Act and not to defeat the object of the Act. 15. It is another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present factual scenario, the provisions of Section 8 of PC Act cannot be made applicable to the petitioner, private individual and if at all any offence is made out as against the petitioner, it should be under general law. But, it is to be seen that Section 8 of the Act corresponds to Section 162 IPC, with limited change. Section 162 IPC has been omitted from IPC altogether by Section 31 of PC Act and the said provision has been incorporated with certain modifications as Section 8 of PC Act. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if at all any offence is made out against the petitioner, the same should be prosecuted under the general law, does not also hold good. 16. It is another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint lodged against a non-public servant along with the public servant, alone can be filed under Section 8 of PC Act; but, in the present case the complaint has been filed against the petitioner alone without inclusion of any public servant; therefore, the same is not maintainable in the absence of inclusion of a public servant. 17. In this regard, it would be appropriate to place a reference in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 11 SCC 724 [State Vs. Jitender Kumar Singh], wherein it has been held as follows- "29. 17. In this regard, it would be appropriate to place a reference in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 11 SCC 724 [State Vs. Jitender Kumar Singh], wherein it has been held as follows- "29. It is thus clear that an offence under the PC Act can be committed by either a public servant or a private person or a combination of both and in view of the mandate of Section 4(1) of the PC Act, read with Section 3(1) thereof, such offences can be tried only by a Special Judge. For example: (i) A private person offering a bribe to a public servant commits an offence under Section 12 of the Act. This offence can be tried only by the Special Judge, notwithstanding the fact that only a private person is the accused in the case and that there is no public servant named as an accused in that case. (ii) A private person can be the only accused person in an offence under Section 8 or Section 9 of the said Act. And it is not necessary that a public servant should also be specifically named as an accused in the same case. Notwithstanding the fact that a private person is the only accused in an offence under Section 8 or Section 9, it can be tried only by a Special Judge." From the dictum laid in the above judgment, it is clear that independently private person can be an accused of an offence under Section 8 of the PC Act. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without public servant, private individual alone can not be shown as accused. 18. On the whole, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No case has been made out warranting this Court to quash the impugned criminal proceedings. The petition is liable to be dismissed. In fine, the Criminal Original Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.