NARESH KUMAR MADAN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 1040 · Decided: 10-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-+-
y 
A 
NARESH KUMAR MADAN 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
-- APRIL IO, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
.. 
) 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
c 
s.2(c)(iii) [rlw s.21 Twelfth (h) IPC]-'Pub/ic.servant'-Ctvil Engineer 
in MP. Electricity Board-Caught accepting illegal gratification--Contention 
that his prosecution under the Act was not maintainable as he was not a 
public servant for the purposes of the Act-Held, the delinquent is a public 
servant within the provisions of the Act-Definition of 'public servant' will 
have to be construed having regard to provisions of the Act - Different 
D statutes may use the same term for different purposes-Interpretation of a 
term in one statute, however, cannot be done with reference to its definition 
-;.:-
contained in another-Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948-s.81-Pena/ Code, 
1860-s.21, Twelfth(h)-/nterpretation of statutes. 
Appellant, a Civil Engineer in M.P. Electricity Board, was caught 
E accepting illegal gratification from the complainant A charge-sheet was filed 
against him under Section 7 read with Section 13(l)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act, 1988. He filed an application contending that his 
prosecution under the Act was not maintainable since the term 'public servant' 
defined in s.81 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 does not satisfy the 
F 
requirement of the definition as contained in s.21 IPC. The trial court rejected 
1-
the application. The High Court having rejected appellant's revision, he filed 
the present a11peal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. Different statutes may use the same term for different 
purposes. A term or a word may be interpreted in the statute itself for fulftllirig 
the purport and object mentioned therein whereas in another statute it may 
be defmed differently. Interpretation of a term in one statute, however, cannot 
,.,.._._ 
be done with reference to its definition contained in another. The object and 
purport of the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 is different from 
H 
1040 
+ 
NARESH KUMAR MADAN v. STA TEOFMADHY A PRADESH 
1041 
the 1988 Act. It provides for constitution and composition of State Elec~ricity A 
Board. (Paras 6, 7 and 12) (1042-F-G; 1044-C) 
1.2. By virtue of Sections 66, 78 and 78-A of the 1948 Act, State 
exercises a deep and pervasive control over the affairs of the Board. The 
officers of the State Electricity Board are required to carry out public 
functions. They are public authorities. It is only for proper and effective B 
exercise of those powers, the statute provides that they would be public 
servants, wherefor a legal fiction has been created in favour of those 
employees, when acting or purported to act in pursuance of any of the 
provisions of the Act within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal 
Code. However, it may be noticed that a person who, inter alia, is in the service C 
or pay of the Government established by or under a Central, Provincial or 
State Act, would also come within the purview thereof. Section 2(c )(iii) of the 
1988 Act also brings within its embrace a person in the service or pay of a 
corporation established by or order a Central Act. Definition of 'public servant' 
will have to be construed having regard to the provisions of the 1988 Act. By 
giving effect to the definition of 'public servant' in the 1988 Act, the legal D 
fiction is not being extended beyond the purpose for which it was created or 
beyond the language of the section in which it was created. There is no reason 
as to why the appellant would not answer the description of public servant 
within the provision of the said Act. 
(Paras 14, 16 and 19) (1044-G; 1045-A-C; 1046-E) E 
Bimal Kumar Gupta v. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, (2001) 
1MPHT330: (2001) 3 JLJ 2, disapproved. 
Maharashtra v. La/it Rajashi Shah and Ors., AIR (2000) SC 937, held 
inapplicable. 
F 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2006 of the High Court of 
Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur bench, Gwalior in Criminal Revision 
Petition No. 664 of2004. 
Rajiv Dutta, Asha Gopalan Nair, Brij Rajesh and Vikash Shanna for the 
Appellant. 
Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
H 
1042 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 4 S.C.R. 
A 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
B 
2. Appellant is a Civil Engineer. He is employed in the Madhya Prades

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