TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the Tamil Nadu Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1973 was repugnant to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act so as to exclude prosecution under those central laws after the State Act was repealed; (ii) whether a Chief Minister or Minister is a public servant within section 21(12) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Issue (i): whether the Tamil Nadu Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1973 was repugnant to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act so as to exclude prosecution under those central laws after the State Act was repealed.
Analysis: The State Act created a distinct statutory scheme for investigation into criminal misconduct by public men through an independent Commissioner and Additional Commissioner, prescribed separate procedural safeguards, provided special consequences such as compensatory costs and punishment for false complaints, and required prosecution under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act only after the preliminary inquiry was completed. The central laws and the State Act were held to operate in different fields and to create different offences with different ingredients and procedures. The saving clause in section 29, as substituted, expressly stated that the Act was in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws then in force and that it did not exempt any public man from other proceedings. On that footing, no direct or irreconcilable inconsistency was shown and the plea of repugnancy, implied repeal, and exclusion of the central laws failed.
Conclusion: The State Act was not repugnant to the central enactments, and repeal of the State Act did not prevent prosecution under the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act, or the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.
Issue (ii): whether a Chief Minister or Minister is a public servant within section 21(12) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: The expression "in the pay of the Government" was construed broadly to include a Minister or Chief Minister who receives salary from Government funds for performing public duties. The constitutional provisions governing appointment, tenure, duties and emoluments of Ministers showed that they hold office by appointment of the Governor, discharge public functions, and are remunerated from public funds. Section 199(2) of the Code also treated a Minister of the Union or a State as a public servant for the relevant purpose. On this construction, a Chief Minister falls within section 21(12) of the Penal Code and is amenable to prosecution as a public servant.
Conclusion: A Chief Minister or Minister is a public servant within section 21(12) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the prosecution failed on both constitutional and substantive grounds, and the criminal proceedings were permitted to continue in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A State law does not attract repugnancy unless it creates a direct and irreconcilable collision with central legislation operating in the same field, and a constitutional functionary who is appointed to office, performs public duties, and is remunerated from Government funds may fall within the statutory concept of a public servant.
TaxTMI 
