LexM. KARUNANIDHI versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
254
M. KARUNANIDHI
v.
UNION OF INDIA
February 20, 1979
J.Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., P. N. BHAGWATI, N. L. UNTWALIA,
S. MURTAZA, FAZAL ALI AND R. S. PATHAK; JJ.J
Tamilnadu Public Men (Cmninal MlscO{lduct) Act, 1973-Whether in-
consistent with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, Prevention
of Corruption Act 1947 & Criminal Law (Atnendment) Act, 1952-Art. 254
of Co11sti111tion of India-Inconsistency between laws 1nade by Parliament and
lalvs 1nade by legislature of states-Effect of.
Constitution of India 1950-Arts. 164 & 161-Nature, constitu/jonal posi-
tion and status of Minister Dr Chief Minister.
Indian Penal
Code 1869-S. 21(12)-Public servant & Criminal Proce-
dure Code 1898-S. 199(2)-'0ther public servant'-Scope of-Chief Minister
whether 'public servant'.
Words & Phrases-'in the service or pay of the Government'-S. 21(12)(a)
!PC-Meaning of.
In December 1973, the Madras Legislature passed an Act known as
the
Tamil Nadu Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1973 after obtaining the
assent of the President. The State Act was amended by Act 16 of 1974 and
the President's assent was received on April 10, 1974. The provisions of the
State Act were brought into force with effect from May 8, 1974.
The State
Act was repctlled and the President's assent to the repealing Act was given on
September 6, 1977.
l'he Act provided for the investigation in respect of a complaint of crimi-
n::iJ misconduct against any public man by a Commissioner or the Additional
Commissioner of Inquiries appointed for this purpose. The
word
'public
man' had been given a specific connotation in s. 2(c) of the Act and clearly
excluded a Government servant.
The appellant was the former Chief Minister of the State of Tamilnadu.
On June 15, 1976 the Chief Secretary to the State Government requested the
Central Bureau of Investigation to make a detailed investigation into certain
allegations tht:Jt the appellant and others were alleged to have abused their
official position in the matter of purchase of wheat from Punjab. With the
State Governor's sanction a charge sheet was filed after investigation for the
prosecution of the appellant under ss. 161, 468 and 471 IPC and s. 5(2) read
with S. 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly having
derived pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 4 to ~ lakhs for passing
favourable orders in respect of some firms.
The appellant applied for discharge under s. 239 Cr. P.C. on the
ground
that the prosecution against him suffered from various legal and constitutional
infirmities.
On the application being rejected, the appellant applied to the
High Court' for quashing the proceedings and for setting aside the order of the
Special Judge refusing to
discharge
him. The High Court rejected the
applications.
•
•
•
,.
I
~
M. KARUNANIDHI v. UNION
255
In the appeal! to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant :
A
( 1) Even though the State Act was repealed, the provisions of the Central
Acts having themselves been protanto repw!ed by the State Act when it was
passed could not be pressed into service for the purpose of prosecuting the
appellant unleM these provisions were re-enacted by the appropriate legisla·
ture.
(2) It was contended that even assuming that the State Act had ceased to
exist and the Central Acts applied, the appellant cannot be prosecuted under
any of the sections of the Penal Code or the Corruption Act, becallSe by virtue
of the position -that the appellant enjoyed as Chief Minister, there was
no
relationship of master and servant between him and the Government and he
was acting as a constitutional functionary, and therefore could not be described
as a .'public servant' as contemplated by s. 21(12) 0£ the Penal Code.
(3) The provisions contained in the State Act run counter to those of the
Central Acts in respect of the following matters; (a) The procedure
for
investigation of- the offences by a Central Agency as contemplated
by
the
Corruption Act b dispensed with and is instead invested in · a Commissioner
appointed under the State Act. (b) The provisions under the Prevention of Cor-
ruption Act, regarding the grant of sanction under s. 197 of the Code to the
accused is given a complete go by and instead a Commissioner is appointed
to hold a regular inquiry for himself and then to submit his report. An accused
who has to be tried under the State Act b thus Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.