Ramesh Balkrishna Kulkarni Vs. State of
Maharashtra [1985] INSC 165 (31 July 1985)
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
VARADARAJAN, A. (J)
CITATION: 1985 AIR 1655 1985 SCR Supl. (2)
345 1985 SCC (3) 606 1985 SCALE (2)254
ACT:
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 21 -
"Public Servant" and "Municipal Councillor" - Distinction
between - Municipal Councillor is not a "Public Servant".
Section 161 IPC and Sec. 5 (1)(d) read with
sec. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act - Prosecution of a "Municipal
Councillor" under - Whether legal.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant, a Municipal Councillor, was
prosecuted u/s 161, IPC and s.5 (1)(d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The trial Court convicted him of the aforesaid charges. On
appeal, the High Court, confirmed his conviction and sentence.
In appeal to this Court, the appellant
contended that as a Municipal Councillor was not a 'public servant' within the
meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, he could not be prosecuted
under the Act even if sanction for his prosecution was obtained.
Allowing the appeal, ^
HELD : 1. The appellant, not being a public
servant, could not be prosecuted under the provisions of the Act - whether or
not sanction to prosecute him is obtained which is wholly irrelevant to the
issue. [348 B-C]
2. The concept of a 'public servant' is quite
different from that of a Municipal Councillor. A 'public servant' is an
authority who must be appointed by Government or a semi- governmental body and
should be in the pay or salary of the same. Secondly, a 'public servant' is to
discharge his duties in accordance with the rules and regulations made by the
Government. On the other hand, a Municipal Councillor does not owe his
appointment to any governmental authority.
Such a person is elected by the people and
functions undeterred by the commands or 346 edicts of a governmental authority.
Therefore, a Municipal Councillor is not a 'public servant' within the meaning
of Sec. 21 IPC. [347 G-H, 348 A] K.S. Nayak v. A.R.Antulay, AIR 1984 S.C.684,
followed.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 140 of 1977.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3/6.9.1976
of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1975.
S.K. Agnihotri and V.N. Ganpule for the
Appellant.
V.B. Joshi and M.N. Shroff for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by Certificate under Article 134 of the Constitution
of India arises out of a judgment dated 3/6.9.76 of the Bombay High Court
affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant imposed by the trial
court.
The short point on which certificate was granted
and the case has been argued by both the parties falls within a very narrow
compass. The appellant, who was a Municipal Councillor, was prosecuted under
section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and s.5(1)(d) read with s.5(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
The High Court, after holding that sanction
by the competent authority to prosecute the appellant was valid, confirmed his
conviction and sentence. Hence, this appeal.
The counsel for the appellant argued that as
a Municipal Councillor was not a 'public servant' within the meaning of s.21 of
the IPC, he could not be prosecuted under the Act even if sanction for his
prosecution was obtained.
The High Court, however, negatived this
contention and held that a Municipal Councillor was undoubtedly a `public
servant' and affirmed the conviction of the appellant.
The only point for consideration in this
appeal before us is whether or not a Municipal Councillor who was not assisting
any public servant is a `public servant' within the meaning of s.21 of the IPC.
It is not necessary for us to go into further 347 details as the matter is no
longer res integra and is covered by a recent decision of this Court in the
case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 684, where this Court made
the following observations :
"Whatever that may be, the conclusion is
inescapable that till 1964 at any rate M.L.A. was not comprehended in the
definition of `public servant' in s.21. And the Santhanam Committee did not
recommend its inclusion in the definition of `public servant' in section 21
...... Now if prior to the enactment of Act 40 of 1964 M.L.A. was not
comprehended as a public servant in s.21, the next question is : did the
amendment make any difference in his position. The amendment keeps the law
virtually unaltered. Last part of Clause 9 was enacted as Clause 12(a). If
M.L.A. was not comprehended in Clause 9 before its amendment and dissection, it
would make no difference in the meaning of law if a portion of Clause 9 is re-
enacted as Clause 12(a). It must follow as a necessary corollary that the
amendment of Clauses (9) and (12) by Amending Act 40 of 1964 did not bring
about any change in the interpretation of Clause (9) and Clause (12) (a) after
the amendment of 1964.
.. .. .. ..
Therefore, apart from anything else, on
historical evolution of Section 21, adopted as an external aid to construction,
one can confidently say that M.L.A. was not and is not a public servant within
the meaning of the expression in any of the clause of Section 21. IPC."
(Emphasis ours) In view of this decision, therefore, we need not go to the
other authorities on the subject. Even so, we are of the opinion that the
concept of a `public servant' is quite different from that of a Municipal
Councillor. A `public servant' is an authority who must be appointed by
Government or a semi-governmental body and should be in the pay or salary of
the same. Secondly, a `public servant' is to discharge his duties in accordance
with the rules and regulations made by the Government. On the other hand, a
Municipal Councillor does not owe his appointment to any governmental authority.
Such a person is elected by the people 348 and functions undeterred by the
commands or edicts of a governmental authority. The mere fact that a MLA gets
allowance by way of honorarium does not convert his status into that of a
`public servant'. In Antuly's case (supra), the learned Judges of the
Constitution Bench have referred to the entire history and evolution of the
concept of a `public servant' as contemplated by s.21 of the IPC.
In these circumstances, we hold that the
appellant, not being a public servant, could not be prosecuted under the
provisions of the Act-whether or not sanction to prosecuted him is obtained
which is wholly irrelevant to the issue.
For the reasons given above, we allow the
appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and
acquit him of the charges framed against him. The appellant, who is on bail,
shall now be discharged from his bail-bond. Fine if paid shall be refunded to
the appellant.
M.L.A. Appeal allowed.
Back