1978 (9) TMI 172 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a member of an executive committee or a servant of a registered co-operative society is a public servant for the purpose of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Whether a Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 has jurisdiction to try such a member or servant for an offence under that clause.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Definition of "Public Servant"
The core issue in both Criminal Appeals Nos. 178 and 248 of 1977 was whether a member of an executive committee or a servant of a registered co-operative society is a public servant under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act).

The Kerala High Court had earlier held that such members or servants are indeed public servants for the purposes of the 1947 Act. This was based on the Kerala Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1962 (Kerala Act), which amended the definition of "public servant" in section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to include members of the executive committee or servants of a registered co-operative society.

The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation, stating that section 2 of the 1947 Act, as substituted by the Kerala Act, explicitly states that "public servant" shall have the meaning assigned to it under the Explanation to section 161 of the IPC as amended by the Kerala Act. The Court rejected the contention that this definition should be limited only to sections 161 to 165A of the IPC, affirming that it applies to all provisions of the 1947 Act.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Special Judge
The second issue was whether a Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (1952 Act) has jurisdiction to try such members or servants for offences under the 1947 Act.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the Special Judge does have jurisdiction. The 1952 Act allows for the appointment of Special Judges to try offences under sections 161 to 165A of the IPC and sub-section (2) of section 5 of the 1947 Act. The Kerala Act further extended this jurisdiction by amending section 2 of the 1947 Act to include members of the executive committee or servants of a registered co-operative society within the definition of "public servant."

The Court noted that the terms of section 2 of the 1947 Act, as substituted by the Kerala Act, are clear and unambiguous, and must be interpreted to mean that the definition applies to all provisions of the 1947 Act, not just sections 161 to 165A of the IPC. The Court also dismissed the argument that the definition should have been incorporated into section 21 of the IPC, noting that this would have made the new categories of "public servants" liable for numerous other offences, which was presumably not the intention of the legislature.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants are public servants within the meaning of the enlarged definition provided by the Kerala Act, and therefore, the offences under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the 1947 Act are triable exclusively by Special Judges appointed under the 1952 Act. Both appeals were dismissed.

Final Judgment
Appeals dismissed.