Prevention of corruption Act not a special law relating to public servants.

As the pointed canvassed in all the writ petitions are substantially the same, they are dealt with together

2. W.P. 4118 of 1979 has been filed by one C. V. Ranganathan, who was a Subordinate Judge, in the service of the State Government and who stands charged for offences under Sections 161, 201 and 466, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the issue of a writ declaring that Section 161 I.P.C. so far as it related to a person in the service or pay of the State Government was not a law in force at the time of the alleged commission of the offence by him

3. In W.Ps. 5106 and 5107 of 1979, one V. Krishnaswami who was the Gazetted Personal Assistant to the Honourable Minister for Health in the Government of Tamil Nadu during the period between 1972 and 1975, and who stands charged for offences under Section 109 I.P.C. r./w. Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the P.C. Act in CC Nos. 6 and 7 of 1978 on the file of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge, Madras City), has prayed for the issue of a writ declaring that the provisions of the Prevn. of Corrupn. Act 1947 and the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1952 are not applicable to public servants serving or under the pay of the State Government

4. One M. Kannappan, who was formerly Minister for Religious Endowments, Government of Tamil Nadu, and who stands charged, for offences under Sections 112(b), 420, 409 and 109 I.P.C. and Sections 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Preven. of Corrupn. Act in CC No. 29 of 1978 on the file of the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge, Madras) has filed W.Ps. 730 to 732 of 1980 praying for the issue of writs declaring that the provisions of Section 5 of the Prevn. of Corrupn. Act, 1947 and the Cr.L.A. Act 1952, in so far as they are made applicable to public servants in the service or pay of the State Government were ultra vires the Central Legislature

5. Thus in all the writ petitions the following contentions have been urged - (1) The Prevn. of Corrupn. Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act cannot be made applicable to public servants in the service or in the pay of the State Government as the Central Legislature which enacted the said Act had no power to legislate on the subject of public servants in the employ of the State Government as that subject fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Provincial Legislature; (2) If the provisions of the 1947 Act did not apply to State Government servants, then the Limitation provided for in Section 468 Crl.P.C. for initiating criminal proceedings will automatically apply in respect of the prosecution initiated against all the petitioners. (3) Section 163 I.P.C. was not a law in force in 1950 as the same stood impliedly repealed by the enactment of S. 124 of the Government of India Act 1915, and therefore, the said provision cannot be enforced as an existing law under Article 372(1) of the Constitution. (4) The Cr.L.A. Act, 1952 cannot be applied to State Government servants as the power to make a law in relation to State Government servants vested only with the State Legislature and the Parliament had no power to constitute special courts to try offences against them

6. The first question that falls for our decision is whether the 1947 Act is a measure which is directly within the concurrent power conferred on the Central Legislature under Entry 1 of List III of the 7th Schedule to the Govt. of Ind. Act 1935, as urged by the respondents or whether it is a measure within the exclusive powers conferred on the Central Legislature under Entry 8 r./w. Entry 42 of List I. The 1947 Act was enacted by the Central Legislature while the Govt. of Ind. Act 1935 was in force. Its preamble makes it clear that the intention was to make more effective provisions for the prevention of bribery and corruption by public servants. Section 3 makes the offences under Sections 161, 165 and 165-A I.P.C., cognizable. Section 4 provides for certain presumptio