LexG. A. MONTERIO versus THE STATE OF AJMER.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1956 Septembef' 21 682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1956) G. A. MONTERIO v. THE STATE OF AJMER. [BHAGWATI, JAFER IMAM and GOVINDA MENON JJ.) "Officer"-Tests to determine who is an 10.ffi.cer'-Metal ea;aminer1 called chaser, in Railway Carriage workshop-Whether officer- I ndian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), s. 21(9)-Prevention of Cor· ruption Act (II of 1947), s. 2. The appellant was a Class III servant employed as a metal examiner, also called chaser. in the Railway Carriage Workshop e.t Aimer. He . accepted a sum of Rs. 150 as illegal gratification for securing a job for some person. He was . charged under s. li(l)(d) of t·he Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7 (Act II of 194 7). 'The appellant contended that he was not an "officer" within the mean- ing of the term used in s. 21(9) of the Indian Penal Code and so could not he a public servant for purposes of Act II of 1947. It was found that the appellant was working under the Works Manager who was certainly an officer of the Government and the duties which he performed were' immediately auxiliary to those of the Works Manager who was also armed with some authority or representative character qua the Government. Held, that the appellant was an officer -within the meaning of s. 21(9) of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, a ·public servant within the meaning of s. 2 of Act II of 194 7. The true test in order to determine whether a person is an officer of the Government, is:- (1) whether he ie in the service -or pay of the Government, and (2) whether · he ie entrusted with the performance of any public duty. The public duty may be eilhet a function ·of the Government delegated to him or·may be a duty immediately auxiliary to)hat of someone who is an officer of the Government. Reg. v. Ramajirav Jivbajirav ((1875) XII Bom. H.C.R. 1), ex• plained. Nazamuddin v. Que1111·Empress, ((1900] I.L.R. 28 Cal. 344) •J:!d Ahad Shah v. Emperor, (A.I.R. 1918 Lah. 152), relied on. CRIMIN.AL APPELLATE JuRISDIOTION: Criminal AppealNo. 146 of 1954. Appeal from the judgment and order dated the ~7th November 1954 of the Court of Judicial Com- S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 683 m1ss10ner at Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and order dated 25th August 1954 of the Court of Special Judge at Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 5 of 1953. B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant. 0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India, Porus A. Mehta, H. R. Khanna and IR. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 1956, September 21. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J.-This Appeal with a certificate of fitness under article 134(l)(c) of the Constitution against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner at Ajmer raises an important question as to the con- notation of the word "officer" contained in section 21(9), Indian Penal Code. The appellant was a Class III servant employed as a metal examiner, also called Chaser, in the Railway Carriage Workshops at Ajmer. He was charged under section 161, Indian Penal Code with having accepted from one Nanak Singh currency notes of the value of Rs. 150. as illegal gratification as a motive for secur- ing a job for one Kallu. He was also charged under section 5(1)(d) of Act II of 1947 with abusing his position as a public servant and obtaining for himself by corrupt or illegal means pecuniary advantage in the shape of Rs. 150 from the said Nanak Singh. He was further charged with having committed an offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code for having induced the said Nanak Singh to deliver to him currency notes of the value of Rs. 150 by dis- honest representation that he could secure a job for the said Kallu. The learned Special Judge, State of Ajmer, who tried him in the first instance for the said offences convicted him of the offence under- sec- tion 161, Indian Pena.I Code as also the offence under section 5(1)(d) of Act II of 1947 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively in regard to the same, both the sentences to run concurrently. In so far, 89 1956 G. A •. Monterio v. The State of Ajmer 684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1956] 1956 however, as it was not proved that the appellant did not believe when lie accepted the money that G. A. Monterio he could secure or would try to secure a job for Kallu, The stat;~! Ajmor it was held that no case under section 420, Indian _ Penal Code was made out and· h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.