JUDGMENT

Prinsep, J. - The petitioner, who is a peon attached to the Office of the Superintendent of the Salt Department in the district of Muzafferpore has been convicted u/s 161 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The first question that we have to consider on this rule is whether the petitioner is a public servant within the terms of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended by Mr. Abdur Rahim that he does not fall within the terms of the last portion of Clause 9 of that section, which declares that "every officer in the service or pay of Government" is a public servant, because he is not an officer. The case of Reg. v. Ramajirav Jivbajirav (1875) 12 Bom. H.C.R. 1. is cited as authority for this. The learned Judges in that case had to consider whether a lessee from Government was on the conditions of his lease a public servant, and, in doing so, they considered generally the meaning of the term "officer." It was there held that an officer means "some person employed to exercise, to some extent and in certain circumstances, a delegated function of Government. He is either armed with some authority or representative character, or his duties are immediately auxiliary to those of