Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.MADHAVA REDDY
Somsetti Lakshmi Narsimayya - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 03-29-71
CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - PUBLIC SERVANT - SECRETARY OF CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY - NOT A PUBLIC SERVANT - CHARGE UNDER SECTION 409 I. P. C. NOT MAINTAINABLE - CHARGE UNDER SECTION 408 I. P. C. TO BE FRAMED.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, the Secretary of a Co-operative Credit Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, was charged with criminal breach of trust under Section 409 I. P. C. The accused contended that he was not a public servant and therefore, the charge under Section 409 I. P. C. could not be framed against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Secretary of a Co-operative Credit Society is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 I. P. C. and therefore, a charge under Section 409 I. P. C. could not be properly framed against him.
Issues: Whether the Secretary of a Co-operative Credit Society is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 I. P. C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Secretary of a Co-operative Credit Society is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 I. P. C. because: - He is not appointed by the Government but elected by the members of the Society. - He does not act on behalf of the Government but for and on behalf of the Society. - He does not act in relation to the pecuniary interest of the Government but only acts for and on behalf of the Society. - He is not in the service or pay of the Government but of the Society.
Final Decision: The court quashed the charge under Section 409 I. P. C. and directed the Magistrate to frame a charge under Section 408 I. P. C.
( 1 ) 1. This revision petition is filed by the accused in C. C No. 64 of 1970 to quash a charge framed against him for an offence punishable under Section 409 I. P. C. it is alleged that the accused as Secretary of a Co-operative credit Society registered under the Andbra Pradesh Co-operative societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), has committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the amount and property entrusted to him. The contention of Mr. Ravi Subba Rao, the learned couosel for the accused is that the accused is not a public servant or a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent and therefore, a charge under Section 409 I. P. C. cannot be framed. Even if all the facts alleged by the prosecution are proved, it may, at the most amount to an offence punishable under Section 406 or 408 I. P. C. and not under Sec. 409.
( 2 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the accused is not a banker, merchant, factor, broker,attorney or an agent, but contended that the Secretary of a Co-operative Credit Society registered under the Act is a "public Servant" within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the charge is properly framed under Section 409.
( 3 ) THE question, therefore, that arises for consideration in this case is whether a Secretary of the Co-operative Credit society registered under the Act is a "public Servant" within the meaning of section 2t and section 409 I. P. C. It is not in dispute that the accused is not appointed by the Government, He is elected by the members of the Co-operative Society in accordance with the registered bye-laws of the Society.
( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor relied on clauses (9) (10) and (12) of Section 21 I. P. C. for supporting his contention that the secretary of a Co-operative Credit Society is a public Servant" clause (9) reads as follows :-"every officer whose duty It is as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend aoy property on behalf of the government, or to make any survey assessment or contract on behalf of the Government, or to execute anv revenue- process, or to investigate or to report, on any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to make, authenticate or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interest of the Government, or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of the government, and every officer in the service or pay of the government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty".
( 5 ) IT is clear from this Clause that the act of an offices who claims to be a public Servant within the meaning of Section 21 (9) should be on behalf of the Government or should be acting in a manner so as to affect the pecuniary interest of the Government or must have been in the service or pay of the Government. It Is clear that the Secretary of a Co-operative Society does not act on behalf of the government He acts for and on behalf of the Society. It is also clear that he does not act in relation to the pecuniary interest of the government but onlv acts for and on behalf of the Society. He is not in the service or pay of the Government but of the Society clause (9) has, therefore, no application.
( 6 ) THE other Clause on which the learned Public Prosecutor places reliance is clause (10) which reads as follows -"every Officer whose duty is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property, to make any survey or assessment or to levy any rate of tax for any secular common purpose of any village, town or district, or to make authenticate or keep aoy document for the ascertaining of the rights of the people of any village, town or district".
( 7 ) THE Officer, in this case, must be acting for any secular common purpose of any village, town or district or for ascertaining the rights of the people of any village, town or district, that is, in respect of all people within a particul
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.