2013 (10) TMI 1413 - SC - Indian Laws

Municipal Councillor deemed public servant under Prevention of Corruption Act

Manish Trivedi Versus State Of Rajasthan

The court concluded that the appellant, as a Municipal Councillor and Member of the Municipal Board, is considered a public servant under the Prevention ... Public servant Prosecution for an offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - Held that:- It is an admitted position that in none of the judgments relied on by the appellant, this Court had considered any provision similar to Section 87 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act and, therefore, those judgments cannot be read to mean that a Municipal Councillor in no circumstance can be deemed to be a public servant. Mr. Adhiyaru points out that provisions pari materia to that of Section 87 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act did exist in the respective enactments under consideration in these cases and, therefore, it has to be assumed that this Court, while holding that Municipal Councillors are not public servant, must have taken note of the similar provision. However, in fairness to him, he concedes that such a provision, in fact, has not been considered in these judgments. We are of the opinion that for ascertaining the binding nature of a judgment, what needs to be seen is the ratio. The ratio of those cases is that Municipal Councillors are not public servants under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. But Section 87 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, as discussed above, make Councillor and member of Board a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, all the judgments of this Court referred to above are clearly distinguishable. Not only this, in the case in hand, we are concerned with the meaning of the expression ‘public servant’ as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and, hence, decisions rendered by this Court while interpreting Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, which in substance and content are substantially different than Section 2(c) aforesaid, shall have no bearing at all for decision in the present case. As the trial is pending since long, we deem it expedient that the learned Judge in seisin of the trial makes an endeavour to dispose of the trial expeditiously and in no case later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Issues Involved:1. Whether a Municipal Councillor is a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. Applicability of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in defining a public servant.3. Interpretation of Section 87 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959.4. Relevance of previous judgments in defining a public servant.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether a Municipal Councillor is a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:The appellant, an elected Municipal Councillor and Member of the Municipal Board, was prosecuted under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant contended that he is not a public servant and hence cannot be prosecuted under the said Act. The court examined the definition of 'public servant' under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which includes any person in the service or pay of a local authority or holding an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform any public duty. The court concluded that the appellant, being a Councillor and Member of the Board, holds an office by virtue of which he performs public duties, thus making him a public servant under Section 2(c)(viii) of the Act.2. Applicability of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in defining a public servant:The appellant relied on previous judgments, including R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay and Ramesh Balkrishna Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, which interpreted Section 21 of the IPC and concluded that a Municipal Councillor is not a public servant. However, the court clarified that these judgments were based on the definition of 'public servant' under Section 21 of the IPC, which is different from the definition under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court emphasized that the definition under the 1988 Act is broader and includes persons holding an office by virtue of which they perform public duties.3. Interpretation of Section 87 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959:Section 87 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, deems every member of a municipal board to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the IPC. The court noted that this provision creates a legal fiction, making members of the municipal board public servants. The court rejected the appellant's argument that Section 87 only applies to members associated with lessees of municipal tax levies. The court held that the expression 'Every member' in Section 87 is independent and not controlled by the latter portion of the section.4. Relevance of previous judgments in defining a public servant:The court distinguished the present case from previous judgments relied upon by the appellant, noting that those cases did not consider provisions similar to Section 87 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. The court also overruled the Rajasthan High Court's judgment in Sumitra Kanthiya, which had relied on previous Supreme Court judgments without considering Section 87 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act and Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.Conclusion:The court concluded that the appellant, being a Municipal Councillor and Member of the Municipal Board, is a public servant under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 87 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. Therefore, the appellant's prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is valid. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial.