Honble SINHA, J.–Leave granted.

(2). Appellant is a Civil Engineer. He is employed in the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board constituted in terms of Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short, the 1948 Act). It is a body corporate and can sue and be sued in its own name under Section 12 thereof.

(3). He allegedly took illegal gratification from the complainant for the purpose of grant of an electrical connection. A trap was laid and Appellant was allegedly caught red handed with a sum of Rs.1,000/-, which was accepted by him by way of illegal gratification from the complainant.

(4). A charge-sheet was filed against him under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the 1988 Act). An application was filed by him contending that he being not a public servant, his prosecution under the 1988 Act was not maintainable. The learned Trial Judge rejected the said contention. A Revision Application was filed by the appellant there against before the High Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment dated 02.08.2006.

(5). Before the courts below as also before us, the contention of Appellant has been that public servant having been defined in Section 81 of the 1948 Act, the same does not satisfy the requirements of the definition as contained in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Strong reliance, in this behalf, has been placed on Bimal Kumar Gupta vs. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt (2001(1) MPHT 330 : (2001) 3 JLJ 2), wherein it has been held that employees of the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board are not public servants.

(6). Different statutes may use the same term for different purposes. A term or a word may be interpreted in the statute itself for fulfilling the purport and object mentioned therein whereas in another statute it may be defined differently.

(7). Interpretation of a term in one statute, however, cannot be done with reference to its definition contained in another. [See Raymond Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (2007) 3 SCALE 341).

(8). Keeping in view the aforementioned legal proposition, it may be necessary to construe the definition of the term public servant occurring in the relevant statutes.

(9). Section 2(1) (c) of the 1988 Act defines public servant in the following terms:

"c) "public servant" means–

(i) any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty;

xxx xxx xxx

(iii) any person in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);"

xxx xxx xxx

Explanation 1.– Persons falling under any of the above sub- clauses are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not. Explanation 2.– Wherever the words "public servant" occur, they shall be understood of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a public servant, whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that situation."

(10). Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code defines public servant to mean :

"The words "public servant" denote a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following; namely:-

xxx xxx xxx

Twelfth.–Every person–

(a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government;

(b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)."

(11). Section 81 of the 1948 Act provides that members, officers and servants of the Board to be public servant, stating :

"81. Members, officers and servants of the Board to be public servants.-All members

Click Here to Read the rest of this document