Inherent civil court powers cannot justify seizure of account books; invalid commissioner appointment cannot create public servant status.

Section 151 CPC cannot be used to authorise seizure of a party's account books where the Code provides no such power and instead supplies specific procedures for discovery and production of documents. An order appointing a commissioner for that purpose was therefore without jurisdiction and void. A person appointed under such an invalid order could not be treated as a public servant under Explanation 2 to Section 21 IPC, because the deeming fiction applies only where there is an existing office lawfully capable of being held. The conviction under Section 165-A IPC therefore could not stand, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a civil court could invoke its inherent powers to appoint a commissioner to seize a party's account books, and whether such appointment was valid; (ii) whether a commissioner appointed under such an invalid order could nevertheless be treated as a public servant for the purpose of liability under the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (i): whether a civil court could invoke its inherent powers to appoint a commissioner to seize a party's account books, and whether such appointment was valid.

Analysis: The inherent powers saved by Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure are supplementary to the express powers of the court and may be used only where they are not inconsistent with the Code or its scheme. Those powers regulate procedure and do not extend to invading substantive private rights or authorising forcible seizure of a party's property. The Code provides specific mechanisms for discovery, production, and penal consequences for non-production of documents, but it does not authorise seizure of account books by commissioner in the circumstances of the case. The impugned order therefore could not be justified either as an exercise of inherent power or under the specific provisions relied upon.

Conclusion: The appointment of the commissioner to seize the account books was without jurisdiction and void.

Issue (ii): whether a commissioner appointed under such an invalid order could nevertheless be treated as a public servant for the purpose of liability under the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: Explanation 2 to Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code applies only where there is an existing office or post and the person is in actual possession of that office, despite a legal defect in title. It does not apply where no pre-existing office exists or where the appointing authority had no power to make the appointment. On the facts, there was no lawful office of commissioner in existence for this purpose, and the appointment itself was incompetent. The statutory fiction could not be extended to treat the appointee as a public servant.

Conclusion: The commissioner was not a public servant within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code, and the appellants were not guilty under Section 165-A.

Final Conclusion: The conviction could not stand because the seizure order was void and the recipient of the bribe was not a public servant in law. The appeal was therefore allowed and the appellants were acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi: The inherent powers of a civil court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be used to authorise seizure of a party's property where the Code provides no such power, and the deeming fiction regarding a public servant applies only to an existing office lawfully capable of being occupied.

---