BAJRANG LAL & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 497 · Decided: 24-02-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
• 
BAJRANG LAL & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
February 24, 1976 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
4~7 
Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), s. 5(1)(d) and (2J, and Indian 
Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), s. 21, Ninth-Railway Khalasis associated in the 
work of issuing passes to Railway employees-If 'public servants'. 
A 
B 
Two khalasis were convicted for the offence of conspiracy to secure railway 
passes on forged applications, and under s. 5(1)(d} and (2), Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1947. 
It was the duty of the office of the Works Manager 
of the Railway to issue passes to railway employees for railway travc;l. 
The 
two 'khalasi,<; were not formally appointed to work in the Pass section, but 
C 
their services were actually utilised in the office for issuing passes. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the khalasis, inter alia, 
y 
that they are not public servants. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (I) Section 21. Ninth, l.P.C., as it stood at the reievant time 
included in the definition of 'public servant' every officer in the service or pay 
, of t,he Government. The tests for determining whether a person is an officer 
D 
of the Government. are: (a) whether he is in the service or pay of the 
Government: and (b) Whether he is entrusted with the performance of any 
public duty whether of an exalted or humble character. [500G·501B1 
In the present case. the two khalasis were actually allowed to deal with 
the preparation and issuance of railway passes. 
and as such, were in fact, 
performing public duties and dicharging public functions auxiliary to 
those 
of the Work-; Manager-who is an officer of the Government-and his office. 
They were. therefore, in actual possession of the situation of a public servant 
E 
and in view of Explanation II to s. 21, l.P.C .• would be 'public servants'. 
They were. therefore. rightly convicted under s. 5(1)(d) and (2), Prevention 
of Corruption Act. [501E-G] 
G. A. Monterio v. State of Aimer [19561 S.C.R. 682, followed. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
198 of 1971. 
Appeal by special leave from the iuMment and order date the 27th 
July, 1971 of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal 
No. 666 of 1969. 
A. N. Mulla, S. K. Mehta and M. Qamaruddin, for the appellant. 
Subhag Mal Jain, for the respondent. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
SARKARIA, J. 
This appeal by special leave is directed against a 
judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan. It arises out of these 
facts : 
There is an office of the Works Manager, Northern Railway at 
Bikaner. 
Among others, the duty of this office is to issue Railway 
Passes to the Railway emDloyees and their dependent family members 
for railway travel. 
Sita Ram and Ganesh Ram were at the relevant 
time April 11, 1963 working as Pass Clerks in the office of the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] 3 S.C.R. 
Works Manager. 
Bairancr T al and Ram Kishan, though posted as 
Khalasis in the Railway Carriage Shop, were associated with the work 
of issuing passes in the ottice ul the Works Manager. The office used 
to receive applications from Railway employees of the different sections 
under the Works Manager duly forwarded by the Foreman Incharge 
of the respective sections for issue of the Railway passes. It was the 
duty of the office hands to check the correctness of the application 
and the genuineness of the signatures of the forwarding officers before 
preparing the passes in the Railway Pass Books maintained by them. 
After checking, preparing and initialling the passes they were put to 
the Works Manager. If the passes were meant for a local line, they 
were put to the Chief Clerk of the Works Manager's office for signa-
ture. 
Thereafter, it was the duty of the Clerks to send the passes to 
the concerned sections with acknowledgement slips, and the Foreman 
of the section was expected to pass 
them on to the 
applicants 
concerned. 
According to the prosecution case, during this period from Decem-
ber 23, 1961 and April 11, 1963, Bajrang Lal, Ram Kishan, Sita 
Ram an.d Ganesh Ram, all hatched a conspiracy for securing passes 
on forged applications. 
The scheme, as untolded at the trial was that 
false and forged applications were prepared in collaboration by Bajrang 
Lal and Ram Kishan with the object of causing wrongful loss to the 
Railway. 
The prosecution has brought material on the record to show that 
15 forged app

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