1981 (5) TMI 124 - SC - Indian Laws

Indian Administrative Service member not public servant under penal code; Appeal dismissed.

The Supreme Court held that the appellant, a member of the Indian Administrative Service, was not considered a public servant under s. 21 of the Indian ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellant, a member of the Indian Administrative Service, was a public servant u/s 21 of the Indian Penal Code for purposes of s. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Whether the Cooperative Store Limited, under which the appellant was employed, qualifies as a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial, or State Act.3. Whether the appellant was employed in connection with the affairs of the Union.Summary:Issue 1: Public Servant Status u/s 21 IPC for s. 197 CrPCThe appellant, a member of the Indian Administrative Service, was placed at the disposal of the Cooperative Store Ltd., a society registered under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. The Supreme Court had to determine if the appellant was a public servant within the meaning of cl. Twelfth of s. 21 of the Indian Penal Code for the purposes of s. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court concluded that the appellant did not meet the description of a public servant as he was not in the service or pay of the Government nor in the service of a local authority, a corporation established by or under an Act, or a Government company.Issue 2: Qualification of Cooperative Store Limited as a CorporationThe appellant argued that the Cooperative Store Limited, being registered under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, was a body corporate and thus a corporation under cl. Twelfth of s. 21 IPC. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the term 'corporation' in this context refers to a body created by the Legislature, not merely incorporated under an Act. The Cooperative Store Limited was not a statutory body but a society created by individuals under the provisions of a statute.Issue 3: Employment in Connection with the Affairs of the UnionThe appellant contended that the Super Bazaar, managed by the Cooperative Store Limited, was a commercial activity of the Central Government, thus making him employed in connection with the affairs of the Union. The Court disagreed, noting that the Super Bazaars were owned and managed by the Cooperative Store Limited, not the Central Government. The appellant was not employed in connection with the affairs of the Union within the meaning of s. 197 CrPC, despite the Central Government's significant financial involvement and control over key appointments.Additional Observation:The Court noted that the honey in question was sold in a sealed container with the manufacturer's warranty as required under r. 12-A of the Prevention of Adulteration Rules, 1955. The learned Magistrate was directed to first determine whether the appellant was protected under s. 19 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, and it was held that the appellant was not a public servant within the meaning of cl. Twelfth of s. 21 IPC for the purposes of s. 197 CrPC. The Cooperative Store Limited did not qualify as a corporation established by or under an Act, and the appellant was not employed in connection with the affairs of the Union.