The judgment established the principle that employees deemed public servants under a specific act may not be considered public servants for the purpose of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruptions Act, 1947 and Section 161, IPC.

S.B. Sakrikar, J.

1. Accused-appellant has directed this appeal against the judgment dated 25th January, 1996 rendered by Special Judge and 1st Addl. Sessions Judge Ujjain in Special Case No. 11/93, thereby convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruptions Act, 1947 and also under Section 161, IPC and he was sentenced to undergo two years RI, Rs. 2,000/- fine and one year RI, Rs. 1,000/- fine under each count. In default of payment of fine he is further directed to undergo one year simple imprisonment and six months simple imprisonment respectively. All the sentences passed against the appellant are directed to run concurrently.

2. As per case of the prosecution, the appellant between 5-9-86 to 10-9-1986 working as Assistant Engineer in the Office of the M.P. Electricity Board at Tarana as Public Servant, demanded Rs. 1,500/- as bribe for installation of Electricity connection on the well situated in the agricultural field and also obtained Rs. 800/- from the complainant Chandersingh, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 161, IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruptions Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act').

3. It is alleged that the complainant did not want to pay any amount to the appellant as illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration for installation of the alleged electricity connection. As such, he went to the office of the DSP Lokayukta Organization, Ujjain and submitted a written report Ex. P-1 for taking action against the appellant. On the report of the complainant, a trap was arranged to caught the appellant red-handed while accepting the alleged bribe from the complainant. On the date of the incident, at about 9.30 or 10 p.m. when the appellant returned from Ujjain and went inside his bungalow at Tarana; at the same time complainant Chandersingh P.W. 6 entered the house of the appellant and paid the marked and powder treated currency notes of Rs. 800/- to the appellant. On accepting the said currency notes, the complainant came out of the house of the appellant and as per plan, gave signal to the members of the trap party. The members of the trap parly immediately entered the house of the appellant and caught hold the hands of the appellant. The officers of the trap party gave their identity and thereafter took search of the appellant for the alleged currency notes. No currency notes were recovered from the person of the appellant in his search. On taking the search of the room, it is said that the alleged currency notes of Rs. 800/- were found in one Almirah and were seized. The hands of the accused were washed in the solution of the Sodium Carbonate which turned pink. A portion of the said solution was preserved in a bottle and it was duly sealed. The appellant was arrested and on performing the other formalities as also the usual investigation, a challan was filed against the appellant before the Trial Court.

4. The accused appellant was charged and tried for the alleged offences punishable under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Sections (2) of the Act and Section 161 of the IPC and on completion of the trial he was convicted and sentenced for the alleged offences as indicated above. Aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal.

5. During the pendency of this appeal, on behalf of the appellant I.A. No. 2332/2000 was filed on the averments that at the relevant time, appellant was in the employment of the M.P.E.B. on the post of Assistant Engineer and not covered under the definition of the 'public servant' as given under Section 21 of the IPC. As such, the appellant cannot be prosecuted or tried for the alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruptions Act, 1947 as also under Section 161, IPC and on this count he deserves acquittal. This application was directed to be heard alongwith the final hearing of the appeal.

6. The counsel for the appellant contended that Section