LexS. GANGOLI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] r959 In our opinion, there oan be no manner of doubt that the appellant's entry into India without a pass- Abdul Rahim t · t t" f 3 f th R 1 d 1 .1 R h" 1 1 por was m con raven ion o r. o e u es an smat a imooa . 1 v. therefore pumshable under r. 6(a) at>.d the appel ant Tiu siatenf was rightly convicted. The appeal is accordingly Bombay dismiBBed. Imam]. r959 May I4. Appeal dismissed. S. GANGOLI v. THE STATE OF' UTTAR PRADESH (and connected appeal) (B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Prevention of Corruption-Railway Servant under the Govern- ment-If a public servant under the Act-Prevention of Corruption Act, I947 (II of I947), s. 2-Indian Railways Act, I890 (9 of I890), s. I37(4)-lndian Penal Code (45 of I86o), s. 2I. The two appellants, who were railway servants under the Government, were put up on trial under s. l20B of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1}(c} and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Sessions Judge who tried the case found, in agreement with the unanimous opinion of the assessors, the appellants guilty and sentenced appellant No. l to rigorous imprisonment for three years and appellant No. 2 to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The High Court on appeal affirmed the order of conviction and sentences passed on the appellants. It was contended on behalf of the appellants in this court that the order of conviction and the sentences passed on them were illegal as they were not public servants under s. 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Held, that it was apparent from the words "for any of the purposes of that Code " used by s. 137(4) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, as it stood prior to its amendment in 1955. that the bar created by that sub-section applied, and was confined, to the purposes of the Indian Penal Code and could not be extended beyond its provisions. In respect of offences other than .those under the Code, therefore, neither sub-s. (1) of s. 137, which applied only to offences under Ch. IX of the Code, nor sub-s .. (4) of that section could apply and the question whether a railway servant charged with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was a public servant or not must be decided under s. z of that Act. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 291 Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act adopts, the x959 definition of a public servant contained in s. 2I of the Indian . Penal Code, and since the main offences charged against the s. Gangoli appellants were under that Act, and not under the Code, s. 2 of v. the Act would apply and they would be public servants within The State of Uttar the meaning thereof. Pradesh Devi Ram Deep Chand v. The State, A.I.R. 1954 Punj. 189, disapproved. Ram Krishan v. The State of Delhi, [1956] S.C.R. r82 and C. A. Montorio v. The State of Ajmer, [r956] S.C.R. 682, considered. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 20 and 21of1957. Appeals by special leave from the j.udgment and order dated September 14, 1955, of the AI!A.habad High Court (Lucknow Bench) at Lucknow in Criminal Appeals Nos. 374 and 376 of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated the April 24, 1954, of the Sessions Judge, Luc~now, in Sessions Trial No. 106 of 1951. R. L. Anand and S. N. Anand, for the appellant in Or. A. No, 20 of 1957. N. 0. Chatterjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appel- lant in Cr. A. No. 21 of 1957. H. R. Khanna and R.H. Dhe_bar, for the respondent. 1959. May 14. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-Art'. the appellants S. Gangoli Gajendragadkar ], and P.R. Chaudhri (hereafter called appellants 1 and 2 respectively) public servants under s. 2 of the Preven- tion of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) (here- after called the Act)? That is the short question which arises for our decision in the present appeal. • That question arises in this way. Chaudhri had been posted as Assistant Permanent Way Inspector, Sultanpur, East Indian Railway, in March, 1948, in the Lucknow E.I.R. Division. Gangoli was posted as Assistant Pay Clerk in the Lucknow E.I.R. Division during the same period. The case against the appellants was that they had committed an offence under s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) read with ss. 5(l)(c) and 5(l)(d) of the Act. It 292 SUPREM:E COURT REPORTS (1960(1)] '959 appears
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.