LexDAITATRAYA NARAYAN PATIL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
i 1 ) ~-- DAITATRAYA NARAYAN PATIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA April 16, 1975 [N. L. UNTWALIA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL- ALI, JJ.J I.P.C. Sec. 21, 353, 355--Public servant-Duty assigned to a public ser- vant by an executive order whether public duty. Shri Antulay,. ::, Minister presided over a meeting of the District Advisory Committee. The appellant attendeci.' that meeting as an M.L.A. and his bro- 14 5 A B ther attended as a Sabha-Patai of the Building Deprtment of the Zila Parishad. C According to the prosecution, the appellant and his brother assaulted Shri Antulay, a public servant in the execution of his duty, a.s such public servant within the meaning of Sec. 353 of the Code. The Magistrate held that Shri Antulay \vas a public servant and that, therefore, the charge could be frameQ under Section 353. On revision, the Sessions Court held that charges coulQ' be framed against the appe1lant under Sec. 353 and 355 of the Code. A revision petition filed b}' the appellant in the High Court was dismissed. On appeal by Special Leave, it was contended before this Court by the D appellant: (1) That the District Advisory Committee is not a Statutory Committee. It was constituted under an administrative order of the Government. It exercised no Governmental authority. Its function is onJy to make recommendations to the Government. (2) The Chairman presiding at a meeting of the Committee is not acting as a Public servant. (3) When an assault was made or criminal force was used against the Chairman as alleged by the prosecution at such a meeting it was directed against the person presiding at the meeting and not against a public servant. E ( 4) A Minist~r may be a public servant but while presiding over a meeting of the Advisory Committee he was not functioning as a F Minister but as a Chairman. . (5) That the Judicial Magistrate committed an error of law in treating the chargesheet ~ a complaint and framing the charge: against the appellant for a non-cognizable offence under section 355/511 of the Code. Dismissing the appeal, . HEID : The District Advisory Committee V.'as constituted by a notifica- tion of _th~ Gove~nment of Maharashtra f~r. the purpos~ _of reviewing the work of Zda Par~shad and Panchayat Sam1t1es. The M1n1ster a public ser- vant was the Chatrman of the Committee. The Divisional Commissioner was to be the: convenor and t?e Deputy Commissioner was to act as the Secre- tary .. They were all pubhc servants. The duty assigned to a public servant by. hrn. master \\'hether. under a stat~te or by the executive order, will assume the character of pubhc_ duty provided the duty assigned is not illegal or against the public policy. [148B-C, 149-B-C] · Shri AntuJay, therefore, was a public servant. CRIMINAL APPELLATE J URJSDICTJON ; Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 1972. G H 146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] SUPP. S.C.R. A Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the t 29th June, 1972 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Rcv1s10n B Appln. No. 1129 of 1971. · M. C. Bhandare, R Nagaratnam and Manju Jaitley, for appellant. H. R. Khanna, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by the UNTWALIA, J.-This is an appeal by special leave. The question C which falls for determination is whether a charge could be legally and · validly framed on the facts alleged by the prosecution against the ap- pellant under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code-hereinafter called the code. D An incident is said to have taken place in a meeting of the District Advisory Committee of Kolaba District held on the 22nd of August, 1970 at about 3. 00 p.m. in a panda! near the Nehru Hall at Alibag under the Chairmanship of Shri A. R. Antulay-a Minister of the Government of Maharashtra. The appellant was a member of the Legis- lative Assembly and bis brother was the Sabhapati of the Buikling De- partment of the Zilla Parishad. Both of them attended the meeting. E Certain incidents took place in that meeting, which according to the prosecution, amounted to assault or use of criminal force by the appel- lant to the Minister--,a, public servant-in the execution of his duty as such public servant within the meaning of section 353 of the Code. It was further alleged that the action of both the brothers also amounted to assault or use of criminal force to Shri Antulay intending thereby F to dishonour him, otherwise than on grave and sudden
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.