1975 (7) TMI 144 - SC - Indian Laws

Importation of amended Penal Code definition into Prevention of Corruption Act confirms servant status and upholds conviction but reduces sentence

The amended, extended definition of section 21 of the Penal Code is to be imported into the Prevention of Corruption Act, resulting in the respondent ... Whether the sub sequent amendments to s. 21 of the Penal Code after its incorporation in the Act would have to be read into the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or not? Held that:- In the facts and circumstances of the present case and having regard to the nature and scope or the Prevention of Corruption Act, the extended definition of s.21 of the Penal Code would have to be imported into s. 2 of the Act. That being the position there can be no doubt that the respondent was a public servant within the meaning of s. 2 of the Act and his conviction by the learned Special Judge, Indore, did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The judgment of the High Court holding that the respondent was not a public servant is legally erroneous and cannot be allowed to stand. The High Court has itself pointed out that the respondent had been forced under duress exercised by his superior officer in drawing the inflated travelling allowance. The High Court has also expressed the view that having regard to the fact that as the accused had to face a trial for a number of years, the Government will consider the desirability of not prosecuting him again. In view of these circumstances, therefore, we feel the respondent has committed only a technical offence and a token sentence is called for - allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court - convict the respondent under s. 420 I.P.C. and s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act but reduce his sentence to the imprisonment already served Issues: (i) Whether the respondent, an employee of a Government company, is a 'public servant' within the meaning of s.2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by virtue of amendments to s.21 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Whether the sentence imposed on the respondent requires modification.Issue (i): Whether the enlarged definition in clause 12 inserted into s.21 of the Indian Penal Code by subsequent amendments is to be read into s.2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 so as to bring employees of Government companies within the meaning of 'public servant'.Analysis: The Prevention of Corruption Act incorporated the definition of 'public servant' by reference to s.21 of the Penal Code. While incorporation by reference ordinarily makes the borrowed provision an independent part of the later Act, exceptions exist where the two statutes are supplemental, in pari materia, or where failure to import the amendment would render the later Act unworkable. The Act's object is to prevent corruption by public servants and is supplemental to the Penal Code for that purpose. The amendments to s.21 expanding clause 12 to include officers of Government companies serve that shared legislative purpose and, if not imported, would frustrate and make the Act ineffective in comparable cases.Conclusion: In favour of Appellant.Issue (ii): Whether the sentence requires reduction in view of surrounding circumstances including duress and prolonged trial.Analysis: The High Court recorded mitigating circumstances including coercion by a superior and prolonged litigation. These factors warrant a lenient approach to sentencing despite upholding conviction on merits.Conclusion: In favour of Respondent.Final Conclusion: The appellate order reverses the High Court's acquittal on the ground that the respondent is a public servant under s.2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by virtue of the enlarged s.21 of the Penal Code; conviction is restored but sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.Ratio Decidendi: Where a later statute incorporates a provision of an earlier penal statute and the two Acts are supplemental or in pari materia such that failure to import subsequent amendments would render the later Act ineffective, the subsequent amendments to the incorporated provision must be read into the later Act to give effect to the common legislative purpose.