1. Conviction of a railway servant under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting illegal gratification. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1956 Supreme(SC) 65
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.Govinda Menon : P.N.Bhagwati : Syed Jafar Imam
G.A.Monterio
Versus
State Of Ajmer
Case No. : 146 of 1954
Date of Decision : 9/21/56
Advocates:
B.P.MAHESHVARI, C.K.DAFTARY, H.R.KHANNA, PORUS A.MEHTA, R.H.Dhebar
B.P.MAHESHVARI, C.K.DAFTARY, H.R.KHANNA, PORUS A.MEHTA, R.H.Dhebar
A person is an 'officer' under Section 21(9) of the Indian Penal Code if they are in the service or pay of the government and entrusted with a public duty, regardless of the rank or nature of the office.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 21(9) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 2 and Section 5(1)(d) - Definition of 'public servant' and 'officer' - The true test to determine whether a person is an officer of the government is: (1) whether he is in the service or pay of the government, and (2) whether he is entrusted with the performance of any public duty - If both requirements are satisfied, the nature of the office, whether exalted or humble, is irrelevant (Paras 13, 15).
(B) Indian Penal Code - Section 21(9) - Scope of 'officer' - The term is not restricted to those to whom regulating or coercive powers are delegated or those appointed to represent the State in relations to individual subjects - A person performing duties immediately auxiliary to those of an officer of the government is also an officer within the meaning of the section (Paras 12, 15, 16).
Facts of the case:
A Class 3 servant employed as a metal examiner in railway workshops was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for accepting illegal gratification to secure a job for another person. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that a low-ranking servant does not fall within the definition of an 'officer' under Section 21(9) of the Indian Penal Code.
Findings of Court:
The appellant was in the service and pay of the government and performed a public duty. His duties were immediately auxiliary to those of a superior who was an officer of the government. Therefore, he is an officer within the meaning of Section 21(9) of the Indian Penal Code and a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Issues: Whether a Class 3 servant in the railway service is an 'officer' within the meaning of Section 21(9) of the Indian Penal Code and whether such servants are public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the term 'officer' in Section 21(9) of the Indian Penal Code includes any person in the service or pay of the government entrusted with a public duty, regardless of the rank of the office. If the duties are auxiliary to those of a government officer, the person is deemed an officer of the government.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a Class 3 railway servant constitutes an officer under Section 21(9), Indian Penal Code, despite lacking delegated coercive or regulating powers. (Para 1 , 3 , 10 )
3. The court evaluated the definition of officer, distinguishing contractual engagements from public duties and including auxiliary roles as falling within the scope of government officers. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 16 , 17 )
4. A person is an officer of government if they are in the service or pay of government and entrusted with the performance of any public duty. (Para 13 , 15 )
5. Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 5(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act upheld. (Para 18 )
6. What is the test to determine if a person is an officer of the government under Section 21(9) of the Indian Penal Code?
The test is whether the person is in the service or pay of the government and is entrusted with the performance of any public duty, regardless of whether the office is of an exalted or humble character. (Para 13 , 15 )
7. Does the lack of delegated coercive or regulating powers prevent a government servant from being classified as an officer?
No. A person is an officer if they perform public duties, even if those duties are humble or immediately auxiliary to those of another government officer who possesses such authority. (Para 12 , 15 , 16 )
8. How does the status of a government contractor or lessee differ from that of an officer under Section 21(9) of the Indian Penal Code?
A contractor or lessee performing contractual duties without delegated authority for coercion or interference is not an officer, as their duties are not attached to an office conferred by the state. (Para 11 )
P.N.BHAGWATI, J.
(1) THIS Appeal with a certificate of fitness under article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner at Ajmer raises an important question as to the connotation of the word `officer` contained in section 21(9), Indian Penal Code.
(2) THE appellant was a Class 3 servant employed as a metal examiner, also called Chaser, in the Railway Carriage Workshops at Ajmer. I He was charged under section 161, Indian Penal Code with having accepted from one Nanak Singh currency notes of the value of Rs. 150.00 as illegal gratification as a motive for securing a job for one Kallu. He was also charged under section 5(1)(d) of Act 2 of 1947 with abusing his position as a public servant and obtaining for himself by corrupt or illegal means pecuniary advantage in the shape of Rs. 150.00 from the said Nanak Singh. He was further charged with having committed an offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code for having induced the said Nanak Singh to deliver to him currency notes of the value of Rs. 150.00 by dishonest representation that be could secure a job for the said Kallu. The learned Special Judge, State of Ajmer, who tried him in the first instance for the said offences convicted him of the offence under section 161, Indian Penal Code as also the offence under section 5(1) (d) of Act 11 of 1947 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively in regard to the same, both the sentences to run concurrently. In so far, however, as it was not proved that the appellant did not believe when he accepted the money that he could secure or would try to secure a job for Kallu, it was held that no case under section 420, Indian Penal Code was made out and he was acquitted of that charge.
(3) THE appeal taken to the Judicial Commissioner, State of Ajmer, by the appellant failed and on the 10/12/1954, the learned Judicial Commissioner granted to the appellant a certificate of fitness for appeal on two main grounds, viz., (1) whether the appellant was an `officer` within the meaning of clause (9) of section 21, Indian Penal Code, and (2) whether the provisions of section 137 of the Railways Act excluded all railway servants from the definition of public servants except for purposes of Chapter 9, Indian Penal Code.
(4) CONCURRENT findings of fact were reached by both the courts below on the question as to whether the appellant accepted Rs. 150.00 from Nanak Singh as and by way of illegal gratification and these findings could not be and were not challenged before us by the learned counsel for the appellant. The only questions which were canvassed before us were the two legal points which formed the basis of the certificate of fitness for appeal granted by the learned Judicial Commissioner, State of Ajmer, to the appellant.
(5) THE second question has now become academical in the facts of the present case by virtue of a decision of this court in Ram Krishan v. Delhi State, which lays down that before the amendment of section 137 of the Railways Act by Act 17 of 1955 railway servants were treated as public servants only for the purposes of Ch. IX, Indian Penal Code, but in any event they were public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act 2 of 1947). In so far as the appellant has, in our opinion, been rightly convicted of the offense under section 5(1)(d) of Act If of 1947 and awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year, the question whether he was rightly convicted of the offence under section 161, Indian Penal Code for which he was awarded the lesser sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment has become merely academical and the only question which remains to be considered by us here is whether he-was an `officer` within the meaning of section 21 (9), Indian Penal Code.
(6) THE provisions of law in regard to the first question may be conveniently set out at this stage:-
(7) SECTION 2 of the P
