LexPADAM SEN AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] PADAM SEN AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (JAFER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR and RAOHUBAR DAYAL, JJ). Commissioner-Appointfnent for seizing account books-Validity of-Inhnr.nt powers of Civil Court-Code of Civil Proud11re, 1908 (V of l9o8J, ss. 75, ,51, 0. XXV I. Public Servant-Commissioner appointed by Civil Co11rt withcml jurisdiction-Whether ;,. possessio>1 of the situaticm of a public servant-Indian Penal Code, 1860 (X LV of 1860), s. 21, Exp. 2. A Munsif appointed one Ras a commissioner for seizing the account books of the plaintiff in a suit and to produce them before him. R seized the account books, and while they were still in his possession the aprellants offered a bribe to R for being allowed to tamper with them. The appellants were tried and convicted under s. 165-A of the Indian ~ enal Code. The appellants contended that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to appoint a commissioner for seizing account books, that the -.opointment of Ras a commissioner was null and void and that cm . .equently R was not a public servant and the appellants com- mitted no offence in offering him a bribe. The respondent urged that the Munsif had jurisdiction under his inherent powers under s. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, to appoint the commis- sioner and that in any case as R was in actual possession of the situation of a public servant within Explanation 2 to s. 21 of the Indian Penal Code, he would be deemed to be a ;public servant. Held, that R was not a public servant and the appellants did not commit any offence under s. 165-A of the Penal Code by offer- ing him a bribe. The ~funsif had no inherent powers to appoint a commis- sioner to seize account books and his order was null and void. The inherent powers under s. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, were w.th respect to the procedure to be followed by a Court in decid- ing the cause before it; such powers did not extend over the substantive rights of litigants. A party had full rights O\'er his account books and the Court had no inherent power to forcibly seize his property. · Explanation 2 to s. 21, Indian Penal Code, applied only to a person actually in possession of a pre-existing office of a public servant. In the present case there was no post or office of a commissioner in existence which could be said to have been occupied by R. His appointment being without jurisdiction R could not be deemed to be a public servant. .. 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 885 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 149/1958. Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 27, 1958, of the Allahabad. High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1154 of 1956. N. C. Chatterjee and R. L. Kohli, for the appellant-. G. C. Mathur and 0. P. Lal, for the respondent. 1960. September 27. .The Judgment of the Court was delivered by · r960 Padam Sen and Anolhe1' v. The Stale of Uttar Pradesh RAGHUBAR DAYAL J.-This is an appeal by Padam Raghubar Sen and Shekbar Chand against the order of the Alla- Dayal J. ha.bad High Court dismissing their appeal against the order of the Special Judge, Meerut, convicting them of an offence under s. 165-A of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court granted leave to apptJ:· against its m~~ , . One Genda Mal, father of Shekhar Chand, appellant No. 2, sued Mithan Lal and others in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Ghaziabad, for money on the basis of promissory notes executed by the defendants in his favour. The defendants apprehending that the plaintiff would fabricate his books of account with respect to payments made by them, applied for the seizure of the account books of the pla.intiff. The Additional Munsif, by his order dated March 27, 1954, appointed Sri Raghubir Pershad, Vakil, Commissioner to seize those books of account. The Commissioner accordingly seized those books and brought them to Ghaziabad. · The appellants were convicted by the Special Judge under s. 165-A of the Indian Penal Code for having offered bribe to the Commissioner for being allowed an opportunity to tamper with those books of account. Their conviction was upheld by the High Court. The two Courts below have found that the appel- lants went to the Commissioner's Office on March 30, 1954, and offered him Rs. 900 as bribe. The appel- lants do not challenge these findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Their only contention is that i13 Padam Sen tind .Another
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.