https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301651 The SC held that the earlier precedent requiring specification of another public servant was confined to the branch of Section 161 IPC dealing with gratification connected to service or disservice involving some other public servant; where the accused worked in the very office concerned and took money for an official act there, omission to name another public servant did not vitiate the charge. It also held that an officer of a State transport corporation was not a public servant under Section 21 IPC read with Section 43 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, because taking a bribe was not an act done in pursuance of the Act or any other law. The acquittal was therefore maintained. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:11:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301651 The SC held that the earlier precedent requiring specification of another public servant was confined to the branch of Section 161 IPC dealing with gratification connected to service or disservice involving some other public servant; where the accused worked in the very office concerned and took money for an official act there, omission to name another public servant did not vitiate the charge. It also held that an officer of a State transport corporation was not a public servant under Section 21 IPC read with Section 43 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, because taking a bribe was not an act done in pursuance of the Act or any other law. The acquittal was therefore maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Aug 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301651