Municipal Councillor deemed public servant under Prevention of Corruption Act

The court concluded that the appellant, as a Municipal Councillor and Member of the Municipal Board, is considered a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 87 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. Consequently, the appellant's prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was deemed valid. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was instructed to expedite the trial.

---

---

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.

---