SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(SC) 67

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
22nd April, 1959
B.P. SINHA, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
The State of Ajmer (now Rajasthan), Appellant
Versus
Shivji Lal, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, for Appellant; B. D. Sharma, Advocate, for Respondent.

Advocates:
B.D.SHARMA, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar

A public servant who accepts money from a person in order to secure a job for him may be guilty of an offence under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, but only if he does so as a motive or reward for rendering or attempting to render service to that person with any other public servant.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - PUBLIC SERVANT - TEACHER IN RAILWAY SCHOOL - WHETHER PUBLIC SERVANT - ACCEPTANCE OF MONEY FOR SECURING JOB - WHETHER OFFENCE UNDER S. 5(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT OR S. 161 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE - INTERPRETATION OF S. 21 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND S. 5(1)(D) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.

Fact of the Case:

The accused, a teacher in a railway school, was charged with accepting money from a person in order to secure a job for him in the Railway Running Shed. He was convicted by the Special Judge under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but the Judicial Commissioner acquitted him on the ground that he was not a public servant.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the accused was a public servant within the meaning of S. 21 of the Indian Penal Code, as he was in the service of Government and was entrusted with the performance of a public duty, namely, teaching boys in a school maintained by Government.

Issues: 1. Whether the accused was a public servant within the meaning of S. 21 of the Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the accused was guilty of an offence under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with S. 5(1)(d) or S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the accused was a public servant within the meaning of S. 21 of the Indian Penal Code, as he was in the service of Government and was entrusted with the performance of a public duty, namely, teaching boys in a school maintained by Government. 2. The court held that the accused was not guilty of an offence under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with S. 5(1)(d), as there was no evidence that he had misconduct himself in the discharge of his own duty in order to obtain money for himself or for any other person. 3. The court also held that the accused was not guilty of an offence under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, as the charge did not disclose who was the public servant whom the accused would have approached for rendering or attempting to render service to Prem Singh in securing a job for him.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the accused was not guilty of any offence.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : This appeal is on a certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer. One Shivji Lal Joshi (hereinafter called the accused) was prosecuted under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, No, II of 1947. He was convicted by the Special Judge on both counts and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a total period of six months. He filed an appeal before the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer. The appeal was allowed on the ground that the accused was not a public servant, though the Judicial Commissioner agreed with the findings of the Special Judge so far as the facts were concerned. The State applied for a certificate under Art 134 (1)(c) of the constitution to enable it to appeal to this Court. This certificate was granted; and that is how the appeal, has come before us.

2. The facts which have been found by both the courts are these. The accused was a teacher in the railway school at Phulera. Prem Singh who was the complainant was known to the accused for about a year before the incident which took place on 6-10-1954 He was in search of a job and the accused had told him a number of times that he would procure a job for him in the Railway Running Shed at Abu Road, 4 Prem Singh paid him Rs. 100. On 5-10-1954, the accused had met Prem Singh at Kaiserganj in Ajmer and told him that Dusehra holidays were approaching and if he paid Rs. 100 the accused would go to Abu Road to secure a job for him. Eventually it was agreed between the two that Prem Singh would pay him Rs. 50 on the next day while the remaining Rs. 50 would be paid after the job had been secured. After this agreement, Prem Singh went to the Deputy Superintendent Police (Special Police Establishment), and made a complaint to the effect that the accused had told him that he could secure employment for him at Abu Road Loco Shed as he had considerable influence there and had demanded Rs. 100 as illegal gratification for that purpose. Prem Singh also said that it had been settled that be would pay Rs. 50 in advance and Rs. 50 after his appointment. Consequently, Prem Singh wrote out an application addressed to the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Abu Road, and also produced five ten-rupee notes before the Deputy Superintendent Police. The numbers of these notes were noted down and the Deputy Superintendent Police arranged that one Nathu Singh should accompany Prem Singh as a cousin when Prem Sing met the accused next day to pay him the money. On 6-10-1954, Prem Singh accompanied by Nathu Singh met the accused as arranged and the accused asked him for an application. Prem Singh gave him the application which he had already written out and the accused said that that would serve the purpose. The accused then asked Prem Singh for the money and he handed over the five ten-rupee notes, adding that he would pay the remaining Rs. 50 after getting service and assuring him that he would keep to his part of the bargain. Thereafter Prem Singh gave the pre-arranged signal and the police party headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police arrived. The Deputy Superintendent Police disclosed his identity and searched the person of the accused. In that search, the application which Prem Singh had written for the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Abu Road, and the five ten rupee notes were recovered. Thereafter the accused was prosecuted as already mentioned above.

3. The accused admitted that the application as well as the five ten-rupee notes were recovered from him by the police. His explanation was that one Jiwan Ram had given him the application which was in English and which was said to be a letter for a friend of Jiwan Ram at Abu Road. The accused did not know English and took the application to be a letter to be delivered to the friend of Jiwan Ram. Jiwan Ram also gave him five ten-rupee notes to be given to that very friend of his when the accused went to Abu Road. As already stated, both the courts below have a













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top