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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the enlarged definition of "public servant" introduced by the Kerala Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1962 applied to the entire Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 so as to make members or servants of a registered co-operative society public servants for the purpose of section 5(1)(c) of that Act and to confer exclusive jurisdiction on Special Judges.
Analysis: The substituted section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 stated that the expression "public servant" shall have the meaning assigned in the Explanation to section 161 of the Indian Penal Code as amended by the Kerala Act. The wording was held to be plain and unambiguous, and "for the purposes of this Act" was interpreted to mean all provisions of the Act, not merely the provisions dealing with sections 161 to 165-A of the Penal Code. The Court rejected the contention that the limiting words in the Explanation to section 161 were carried into the substituted definition, and also rejected the argument that the legislature should have amended section 21 of the Penal Code instead. It was held that the Kerala amendment deliberately expanded the definition for the corruption law alone and, consequently, governed section 5(1)(c) of the 1947 Act as well as the Special Judge provisions.
Conclusion: The enlarged definition of "public servant" applied to the whole of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the appellants fell within that definition, and the offences were triable exclusively by Special Judges.