Citations: Akhtar Alam Vs State of Bihar, 1968
Date of judgment: 12.11.1968
Equivalent citations: 1970(18)BLJR977, (1969)1SCC142, [1969]SCR682
Case No. : Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 1966
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Appellant: Akhtar Alam
Respondent: The State of Bihar
Bench:
- Hon’ble Justice A.N. Grover
- Hon’ble Justice J.C. Shah
- Hon’ble Justice Vaidynathier Ramaswami
Court: Supreme Court of India
Statues referred:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections- 21, 21(9), 81, 161, 197, 409 and 477A
- The Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947); Section 5(2)
- The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948; Section – 81
Cases referred:
- State of Maharashtra Vs Jagatsingh Charansingh and Anr.
- G.A. Monterio Vs The State of Ajmer
- Reg. v. Ramajirao Jivbaji
- Nazamuddin v. Queen-Empress
- Emperor v. Karam Chand Gobind Ram
- Gill v. The King
- Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown
Facts:
- The appellant, Akhtar Alam, was the Head Clerk to the Executive Electrical Engineer of the State Electricity Board.
- The Appellant was convicted in the Court of Special Judge of Patna, under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947) on the allegation that on 08.07.1961 he had committed an offence in obtaining a bribe for the Executive Engineer by resorting to corrupt and illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant.
- An appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the High Court of Bihar.
- Later, the Appellant took the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court of India.
Issues involved:
- Whether the appellant was a “public servant” within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act or section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.
Contention of Appellant:
The counsel for the Appellant contended that:
- The Appellant could not be convicted of the charges because he was not a “public servant” within the language of Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act or Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was the servant of the State Electricity Board and under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (Act 54 of 1948), the State Electricity Board so constituted is not a department of the State Government. It is a body corporate having the power to appoint the Secretary and other such officers and servants as may be required by the Board to carry out its functions.
- As far as bribing is concerned, it cannot be brought within the scope of acting or purporting to act in pursuance of any of the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 as the officers and servants of the Board are deemed to be a public servants only when acting or purporting in pursuance of any of the provisions of the Act.
Contention of Defendant/Respondent:
The counsel for the Respondent contended that:
- The Appellant could be said to be an officer within the meaning of Section 21(12) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as according to Beg Vs Ramaji Rao Jivhaji, the word officer meant some person employed to exercise to some extent and in certain circumstances a delegated function of government. He was either himself armed with some authority or representative character or his duties were immediately auxiliary to those of some one who was so armed.
Judgment:
It was held that the Appellant was an officer in the service or pay of the corporation as defined in Section 21(12) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and therefore a “public servant” within the meaning of the section and also of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio decidendi:
- The appellant was found to be performing duties immediately auxiliary to those of the Executive Engineer, indicating that he was an officer in the service or pay of the Corporation as defined in section 21(12) of the Indian Penal Code.
- The term “officer” in this context refers to someone employed to exercise delegated functions of the Government, either armed with authority or working in an immediately auxiliary capacity to an authorized representative.
- The appellant’s designation as “Head Clerk” and his duties being auxiliary to the Head of the Office supported the conclusion that he was an officer.
- His position within the Corporation made him a public servant under section 21(12) of the Indian Penal Code and section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Obiter dicta:
N/A
Conclusion:
In the present case, the Court found that the appellant was performing duties immediately auxiliary to those of the Executive Engineer who was the Head of the Office. The Court reaffirmed the decision of High Court of Bihar and held that the Appellant was an officer in the service or pay of the Corporation as defined in Section 21(12) of Indian Penal Code,1890 and therefore a ‘public servant’ within the meaning of the section and also of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Drafted by: Devanshi Saxena, Manipal University, Jaipur
Edited by: Bharti Verma, Associate Editor at Law Insider
Published on: October 12, 2023 at 00:03 IST
