Recent developments in criminal jurisprudence of the country have made it quite of interest to examine as to whether the office-bearers of a co-operative society (e.g. its President and Secretary) should be regarded as public servants or not within the meaning of Section 21 of the I.P.C. It appears that there are two currents which permeate the judicial thought on the subject: one which is designedly specific and the other widely constitutional. The former is reflected in S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corpn., Delhi and the latter in Daman Singh v. State of Punjab.
Image Source: oldnews.aadl.org
A Commissioner appointed by a Civil Court without jurisdiction is not a “public servant” within the meaning of Section 21, I.P.C. Explanation to Section 21 has no application to such a case.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
For the application of the Explanation, the person concerned should be in actual possession of the pre-existing office of a public servant. The Chairman of the managing committee of a Municipality is a public servant.
A member of executive committee or servant of a registered co-operative society is a public servant within the meaning of the enlarged definition by reason of the language employed in Clause (iv) of the Explanation and therefore, the offences under Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Act said to have been committed by him are triable exclusively by special Judges appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952.
A Chief Minister or a Minister are in the pay of the Government and are therefore, public servant within the meaning of Section 21(12) of the Penal Code.
In a decision of the Supreme Court it is clear that the member of municipal corporation is not a public servant because he is neither appointed by the Government nor getting the salary from the Government.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In case of State of Maharashtra v. L.W. Kenchand the High Court of Bombay upheld that the servants of nationalised banks are public servants because such banks will be a Government company after nationalisation and perform its function according to the provisions of Section 617 of the Companies Act.
In Naresh Kumar Madan v. State of M.P., the Supreme Court held that the definition of “Public Servant” under Section 21 is not exhaustive. A person may be a public servant in terms of another statute.