IMPORTANT POINT
In Sikkim I.P.C. as it stood on 10.7.53 is applicable and not I.P.C. as amended from time to lime after 10.7.53.

JUDGMENT

J K Mohanty, C J. - This revision has been filed by the State of Sikkim praying that sentence of fine imposed on the respondents while convicting them under section 291 of the Indian Penal Code (section 293 perhaps has not been mentioned due to inadvertence) is not according to law. As per the Indian Penal Code, as it stood on the date of commission of the offence, sentence of imprisonment should have been imposed. In this case accused- Respondents were prosecuted for having committed offences under sections 292, 293 of tile Indian Penal Code and section 14 of the Indian Cinematography Act. They pleaded guilty and the Magistrate imposed fine of Rs. 100,00/-under section 292 of the I.P.C., Rs. 150.00 under section 293 of the Indian Penal Code and Rs. 40.00 under section 14 of the Indian Cinematography Act. The reason for imposing sentence of fine only as mentioned in the order was that the amendment made in the Penal Code in the year 1969 making imprisonment compulsory does not apply to the State of Sikkim. According to the learned Magistrate Indian Penal Code as it stood on 10.7.1953 was adopted, promulgated and enforced in Sikkim by the then Maharaj of Sikkim by the Notification No. 1601 O.S. dated 10th July, 1953. The learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State of Sikkim submitted that the Indian Penal Code as amended from time to time should be made applicable not as it stood on the date of the notification as mentioned above.

2. The only question for determination, therefore, is whether the Indian Penal Code as amended from time to time after 10.7.1953 shall be applicable or not to the State of Sikkim.

3. In order to substantiate his arguments the learned Advocate-General relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.V. Narasimhan1 where it has been held:

"Where a subsequent Act incorporates provisions of a previous Act, then the borrowed provisions become an integral and independent part of the subsequent Act and are totally unaffected by any repeal or amendment in the previous Act. This principle, however, will not apply in the following cases: (a) where the subsequent Act and the previous Act are supplemental to each other; (b) where the two Acts are in parimateria; (c) where the amendment in the previous Act if not imported into the subsequent Act also, would render the subsequent Act wholly unworkable and ineffectual; and (d) where the amendment of the previous Act, either expressly or by necessary intendment, applies the said provisions to the subsequent Act,"

It was further held:

"Having regard to the preamble and the object of 1947 Act and the Penal Code, there can be no doubt that the Act was a statute supplemental to the Penal Code. Therefore, the definition of public servant borrowed from section 21 of the Penal Code must be read into section 2 of the Act not only at the time when it was borrowed (i.e., 1947) but even at the material date when the offence is committed. This being the position, it is manifest that, by virtue of the amendments, 1958 and 1964 which inserted twelfth clause to section 21 of the Penal Code, an employee of the Heavy Electrical (India) Ltd., Bhopal, committing an offence under the 1947 Act after 1964, clearly comes within the meaning of "public servant". Further, the prevention of Corruption Act, being a social Legislation, its provisions must be liberally construed so as to advance the object of the Act. This can only be done if an extended meaning is given to therein "public servant" as referred to in section 2 of the Act by applying the enlarged definition contained in clause 12 inserted in the Penal Code by the two amendments referred to above.

"However, it cannot be held that the Act and the Penal Code were statutes in pari materia and form part of one system. The Act is a completely self-contained statute with its own provisions and has created a specific offence of criminal misconduct which is quite different from the offence of bribery as defined in the Penal Cod