1960 (9) TMI 96 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court to appoint a Commissioner for seizing account books.
2. Whether the Commissioner can be deemed a public servant under the Indian Penal Code.

Jurisdiction to Appoint Commissioner:
The case involved an appeal against the conviction of two appellants under s. 165-A of the Indian Penal Code for offering a bribe to a Commissioner appointed by the Additional Munsif to seize account books. The appellants contended that the appointment of the Commissioner was without jurisdiction as it exceeded the powers of the Civil Court. The State argued that the Court could appoint a Commissioner under its inherent powers saved by s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Munsif had no inherent power to pass the order appointing a Commissioner to seize the plaintiff's account books. The Court emphasized that specific powers must be conferred on the Court for actions affecting substantive rights of parties.

Public Servant Status of Commissioner:
The State argued that even if the appointment of the Commissioner was null and void, he should be considered a public servant under Explanation 2 to s. 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The Explanation defines a public servant as someone in actual possession of a public servant's situation, regardless of legal defects. The Court disagreed, stating that the Explanation applies only when a pre-existing post exists. As there was no existing office of Commissioner and the Additional Munsif lacked the authority to appoint one, the Commissioner could not be deemed a public servant. Consequently, the appellants were acquitted of the offense under s. 165-A of the Indian Penal Code, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that the appointment of the Commissioner to seize the account books was without jurisdiction, and the Commissioner could not be considered a public servant. As a result, the appellants were acquitted of the offense of offering a bribe, and the order of the lower court was set aside. The Court directed the refund of any fine paid and cancellation of the appellants' bail bonds.