Case Note & Summary
The State of Ajmer (now Rajasthan) appealed to the Supreme Court against the acquittal of Shivji Lal, a teacher in a railway school, who was prosecuted under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution alleged that the respondent offered to secure a job in the Railway Running Shed at Abu Road for the complainant in return for Rs. 100. The complainant paid Rs. 50 and submitted an application to the Divisional Mechanical Engineer through the respondent. The Special Judge convicted the respondent, but the High Court acquitted him on the sole ground that he was not a public servant. The State argued before the Supreme Court that the respondent was a public servant under section 21 clause 9 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The respondent contended that even if he were a public servant, the charges could not be sustained because there was no evidence that he intended to approach any public servant. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was indeed a public servant as he was in the service of the Government, paid by it, and entrusted with the public duty of teaching in a government-maintained school, following the precedent in G.A. Monterio v. The State of Ajmer. However, the Court further examined the ingredients of the offences. It found that neither the charge under section 161 IPC nor the evidence indicated any intention on the respondent’s part to approach a public servant to secure the job. Regarding section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court interpreted the requirement that the abuse of position must be ‘in the discharge of his duty’, meaning it must occur in connection with official functions. Since there was no evidence of such abuse or intent to approach a public servant, the essential ingredients of the offences were not made out. Consequently, the acquittal was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Public Servant - Definition - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 21 Clause 9 - A teacher employed in a government-maintained railway school, paid from government funds and entrusted with the public duty of teaching, is a public servant. The Supreme Court followed G.A. Monterio v. The State of Ajmer, [1956] S.C.R. 682. Held that the respondent fell within the ninth clause as he was in government service and performed a public duty. B) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Offence of Criminal Misconduct - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Section 5(1)(d) - The phrase 'by otherwise abusing his position' read with 'in the discharge of his duty' requires that the abuse of position occur in the course of official functions. The prosecution must prove that the accused intended to use his official position to approach a public servant for illegal gratification. In the absence of any charge or evidence that the respondent intended to approach any public servant to secure the job, the essential ingredient of the offence was not established. Held that the acquittal by the High Court on the question of public servant was erroneous, but the acquittal on the charges was upheld because no offence under section 5(1)(d) was made out.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a teacher in a railway school is a public servant under section 21 clause 9 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and whether the respondent's acts constitute offences under section 161 IPC and section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the respondent was a public servant under section 21 clause 9 IPC, rejecting the High Court’s sole ground for acquittal. However, it found that neither the charge nor the evidence disclosed any intention on the respondent’s part to approach a public servant to secure the job, which is an essential ingredient of the offences. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Law Points
- Teacher in government service performing public duty is a public servant under section 21 clause 9 Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- offence under section 5(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1947 requires abuse of position 'in the discharge of his duty' necessitating proof of intention to approach a public servant
