9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1979 (2) TMI 191 - SC - Indian LawsWhether if the State law had repealed or overruled the provisions of the Central law what will be the position after the State law itself ceases to exist? Held that - Since the State Act has now been repealed the question of the prosecution of the appellant hereafter under the State Act does not arise at all, and, therefore, the question of two remedies being open to the prosecution which they may elect at their own option does not arise in this case. The appellant can be prosecuted only under the Corruption Act and the Penal Code and under no other Act at the moment. Moreover, it was obviously wrong to say that the earlier Central Law became violative of Article 14 as soon as the State law was enacted. A Minister is appointed or dismissed by the Governor and is, therefore, subordinate to him whatever be the nature and status of his constitutional functions.That a Chief Minister or a Minister gets salary for the public work done or the public duty performed by him.That the said salary is paid to the Chief Minister or the Minister from the Government funds. It is thus incontrovertible, that the holder of a public office such as the Chief Minister is a public servant in respect of whom the Constitution provides that he will get his salary from the Government Treasury so long he holds his office on account of the public service that he discharges. The salary given to the Chief Minister is coterminous with his office and is not paid like other constitutional functionaries such as the President and the Speaker. These facts, therefor, point to one and only one conclusion and that is that the Chief Minister is in the pay of the Government and is, therefore, a public servant within the meaning of section 21 (12) of the Penal Code. For the reasons given above, we are satisfied that a Chief Minister or a Minister is undoubtedly a public servant as defined in section 21(12) (a) of the Penal Code and the view taken by the High Court on this point was absolutely correct in law. The result is that all the contentions raised by Mr. Venu Gopal, counsel for the appellant fail and the appeals are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Repugnancy between the State Act and Central Acts. 2. Definition of "public servant" under Section 21(12) of the Indian Penal Code. Detailed Analysis: 1. Repugnancy between the State Act and Central Acts: The appellant argued that the Tamil Nadu Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1973 (State Act) was repugnant to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act (Central Acts). The contention was that by virtue of Article 254(2) of the Constitution, the provisions of the Central Acts stood repealed when the State Act was in force and could not revive after the State Act was repealed unless re-enacted by the appropriate legislature. Analysis: - Article 254(1) states that if there is a direct collision between a State law and a Central law on a matter in the Concurrent List, the Central law prevails. - Article 254(2) allows a State law to prevail if it has received the President's assent, but this is subject to Parliament's power to amend or repeal the State law. - The Court examined whether there was a real repugnancy between the State Act and the Central Acts. It was found that the State Act created a new and distinct offence, different from those under the Central Acts, and had different procedural requirements. - The Court emphasized that repugnancy arises only when there is a clear and direct inconsistency between the two laws, making it impossible to obey one without disobeying the other. - The State Act was found to complement the Central Acts rather than contradict them. The State Act's provisions were in addition to and not in derogation of the Central Acts. - The amendment to Section 29 of the State Act, stating that its provisions were in addition to other laws, further supported the view that there was no repugnancy. Conclusion: The Court concluded that there was no repugnancy between the State Act and the Central Acts. The State Act did not overrule the Central Acts but created distinct offences and procedures. Therefore, the provisions of the Central Acts could still be invoked for prosecuting the appellant. 2. Definition of "public servant" under Section 21(12) of the Indian Penal Code: The appellant contended that as a Chief Minister, he was not a "public servant" as defined under Section 21(12) of the Indian Penal Code. The argument was that there was no master-servant relationship between him and the Government, and he was acting as a constitutional functionary. Analysis: - Section 21(12) defines a "public servant" as every person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government. - The Court distinguished between being "in the service of the Government" and "in the pay of the Government." While the former implies a master-servant relationship, the latter has a broader scope. - A Chief Minister, appointed by the Governor and paid from Government funds for performing public duties, falls within the definition of being "in the pay of the Government." - The Court referred to various constitutional provisions, including Articles 164 and 167, which outline the duties and remuneration of Ministers, reinforcing that they are in the pay of the Government. - The Court also cited previous judgments and legal texts supporting the view that a Minister is a public servant. Conclusion: The Court held that a Chief Minister or a Minister is a public servant under Section 21(12) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, being in the pay of the Government and performing public duties, clearly fell within this definition. Final Judgment: The appeals were dismissed. The Special Judge was directed to proceed with the case according to law.
|
