M. CHANDRA, J. : This case has come up before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge (Mathur, J.) in connection, with the conviction of Anrudh for assault on a driver in the roadways bus and the sentence of 12 months R. I. under S. 332, I.P.C. by the Judicial Officer Deoria. In appeal also the conviction and sentence were upheld. The case came up in revision before the learned Single Judge of this Court. A decision of Broome, J. of this Court in Cr. Revn. No, 1463 of 1960 (All). Ram Prakash v. State, was cited before him. In that case, Broome, J, relying upon the case of G. A. Monterio v. State of Ajmer, (S) Alit 1957 SC 13, held that the driver of a roadways bus within the meaning of S. 21, I.P.C. (Sic) was a public servant. On behalf of the accused the case of Satya Narain Singh v. District Engineer P.W.D. Ballia and another, AIR 1962 SC 1161, was cited in which it was held that roadways vehicles crossing over ferries cannot be regarded as crossing on public service under the provisions if the Notification issued under S. 15 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878. It was contended before the learned single Judge that 'public duly' under S. 21(9), I.P.C. implies performance of duty in or in connection with public service and that consequently the employers of the State Road Transport were not entrusted with the performance of public duty.

Clause (9) of S. 21, I.P.C. runs as follows :

"Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep, or expend any property on behalf of Government, or to make any survey, assessment, or contract on behalf of Government, or to execute any revenue process, or to investigate, or to report on any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of Government, or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of Government, and every officer in the service or pay of Government, or remunerated by tees or commission for the performance of any public duty".

2. We think that such an order would, under S. 21 of thy Penal Code, be covered by the words 'public servant'.

3. The first part of this clause says that every officer whose duty is, as such officer, to 'keep' any property on behalf of Government, would be a public servant. The driver of a Roadways bus is responsible for proper care and maintenance of the vehicle in his charge. Thus his duty is, as a driver, not only to drive the bus but also to keep the vehicle under proper care and maintenance while he is in charge of it. He is therefore a public servant under the provisions of first part of Cl. (9) of S. 21, I.P.C. in any case, he is covered by the second part of the clause which says that 'public servant' denotes every officer in the service or pay of Government, or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty. He is in the pay of Government, in the service of Government and is also performing public duty of keeping the vehicle in his charge and maintaining the same.

4. In the case of (S) AIR 1957 SC 13, their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to the requirements that the person should be in service or pay of the Government and should be entrusted with the performance of any public duly while they were considering the case of a person employed as Chaser in the Railway Carriage Work, shop. The petitioner before their Lordships was Class III servant and was employed as a metal examiner known as Chiser in the Railway Carriage Workshop and was held to be a public servant.

5. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the roadways is a commercial undertaking of the State and could not, therefore, be said to be performing any public duty. This contention is without force. In the case before their Lordships of the Supreme Court also in 1957 the Chaser was an employee in the Railway Carriage Workshop. The railway also earned profits and thus cannot but be said to be a commercial undertaking of the Union Government. The only difference is that it i