AKHTAR ALAM versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 682 · Decided: 12-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

AKHTAR ALAM 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
November 12, 1968 
[J. c. SHAH, v. R.AMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947-s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1). 
Indian Penal Code 1860 s. 21 (12)-Heat! Clerk to Executive Engineer tak-
ing bribe-whether "public servant"-principles for determining whether 
Head Clerk was an officer of the Corporation within the meaning of s. 21 
(12) l.P.C. 
The appellant was the Head Clerk to the Executive Electrical Engi-
near of the State Electricity Board 
He was convicted under s. 5 (2) 
read withs. 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allega-
tion that on July 8, 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 conYiction was dismissed by the High Courr. 
In appeal to this Court by special leave, the High Court's findings 
on questions of fact Were not challenged but it was contended that upon 
these findings the appellant could not be convicted of the charges be-
cause he was not a "public servant" within. the language of s. 5 (2) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act or s. 21 ot the Indian Penal Code. It 
was further contended that the appellant was performing only routine 
clerical duties and could not be treated as an 'officer' within the meaning 
of s. 21(12)1.P.C. 
HELD : On the facts found the appellant was an officer in the service 
or pay of a Corporation as defined in s. 21 ( 12), I.P.C. and therefore a 
public servant' within the meaning of that section and also of s. 2 of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act. [691 DJ 
The true test in order to determine whether the appellant was 
'an 
officer' of the Corporation within the meaning of s. 21(12), Indian Penal 
Code, would be : ( l) whether he was in the service or pay of the Corpo-
ration, and (2) whether he was himself either armed with some authority 
or representative character by the Corporation; or whether his duties were 
immediately auxiliary to those of some one who was armed with 
such 
authority or. representative character. In the present case, the High Court 
found that the appellant was a person performing duties immediately auxi~ 
liary to those of the Executive Engineer who was the Head of the Office. 
The very designation "Head Clerk" denotes that there are other clerks 
attached to the office who occupy subordinate pos:tions in relation to the 
Head Clerk and the duties of the Head Clerk from the nature of things 
are bound to be immediately auxiliary to the Head of the Office. [691 Al 
Reg. v. Ramajirao Jivbaji, 12 Born. H.C.R. 1; Nazamuddin v. Queen-
Empress, I.L.R. 28 Cal. 344; Emperor v. Karam Chand Gobind Ram, 
A.I.R. 1943 Lab. 255; and G. A. Monterio v. The State of Ajmer, A.l.R. 
1957 S.C. 13; referred to. 
,
A 
.. -
' 
B 
c 
D 
, ...
E 
F 
G 
,. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
AKHTAR ALAM v. THE STATE OF B!HAR (Ramwwami, }.) 6Sj 
Held Also: The appellant cannot be deemed to be a public servant 
within the meaning of s. 81 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 because 
he was not acting or purporting to act in purrnance of any of the provisiono 
of that Act. 
On a plain reacling of s. 81 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 the 
officers and servants of the State Electricity Board are deemed to be public 
servants only when acting or purporting to act in pursuance of any of the 
provisions of that Act. So far as the receiving of a bribe is concerned, it 
cannot be brought within the scope of acting or purporting to act in 
pursuance of any of the provisions of the Act. 
Therefore the appellant 
while taking the bribe, cannot be deemed to be a public servant within the 
meaning of s. 21, I.P.C. in view of the language of s. 81 of the Electricity 
(Supply) Act. [687 BJ 
Gill v. The King. 75 I.A. 41; Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown, [1939] 
F.C.R. 159; and State of Maharashtra v. Jagatsing Charansingh, 
[1964] 
4 S.C.R. 299'; referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
207 Of 1966. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 10, 1966 
of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1964. 
K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appellant. 
D. Goburdhun, for the responde,nt. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. The question involved in this appeal is whe-
ther the appellant Akhtar Alam was a "public servant" within the 
meaning of s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II 
of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.