LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus M. V. NARASIMHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
6
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
M. V. NARASIMHAN
July 15, 1975
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND S. M. F,AZAL ALI, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 2-lncorporation of provisJon.t
o1 s. 21 of Pl·rtal Code in the definition of public servant-Amendment to s. 21
including l·mployee of Government company-Definition of public servant in s.
2 of the Act, if unaffected.
Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, provides that, for the
purposes of this Act, "public servant" means a public servant as defined in s. 21
of the Indian Penal Code.
Before the Criminal Law (Amendment) t\ct, 1958
(Act No. 11 of 1958) W:\S passed add'..ng clause 12 to this section, s. 21 of the
Penal Cod::! consisted only of eleven clauses and an employee under the Corpora~
tion or a Government Company did no fall within the purview of any of the
clauses of s. 21 of the Penal Code. Clause 12 was further amended by the Anti-
Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act. 1964 (Act No. XL of 1964) enlarging the
definition of "public servant".
_ The respondent who was an employee in the Heavy Electricals (India) Ltd.,
Bhopal, which is a Government Company, was conv!cted by the Special Judge,
Indore, under s 420 I.P.C. ands. 5(2) read withs. 5(1)(d) of the Act and was
ientencerl to one year rigorous imprisonment on each count. The appeal filed by
the respondent before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was allowed mainly on
tbe ground that as the respondent was not a public servant as contemplated by
the provisions of the- Act, his trial under the Act was \Vithout jurisdiction. The
H£gh Court took the view that as the Act had incorporated the definition of the
Penal Code prior to its amendment, it became an integral and independent part
of the Act and wouJd remain unaffected by any rePeal or change in the previous
Aot, namely, the Penal Code. This appeal has been preferred on the basis of
the certificat~ granted by the High Court.
· Allowing the appeal,
' I-IELD: (i) It is \Yell-settled that, after the provision of the prev:ons Act is
incorporated in the subsequent Act, the off-spring, namely, the incorpora~ed pro-
Tisions, "Survives even if the previous Act is repealed, amended, declared a nutlity
or erased from· the statute book.
But the Act being a social legislation its pro-
A
B
c
D
E
visions must be construed liberally so as to advance the object of the Act. Though
F
the Act and the Penal Code are not statutes in pari materia, there can be no doubt
that the Evidence Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act form part of one
system, because the rules of Evidence Act, with minor exceptions, apply to trials·
of offences created under the Act. The Act, no doubt, contains a penal flavour
but i.t is in effect a piece of social legislation directed towards eradication of the
evil of corrurtion amongst the services alone. In other words, the public servants
alone fall within the mischief of the Act and no one else._ [llE; 12A-C]
Clarke v. BradlauRh. [1881] 8 Q.B.D. 63,69, Ram S~rup v. Munshi and
G
Othf'rs, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 858, 868-869, In re Wood's Estate, Ex parte Her Majesty's
Commissioners of Works and Buildings, [18861 31 Ch. D. 607, 615-616, Secr~tary
of State for India in Council v. Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd.
L.R. 58 I.A. 259. 266-267. referred to.
•
State of Madras v. Vaidyanath Aiyar, A.LR. 19.58 S.C. 61, relied on.
(
(ii) The object of the Act is to eradicate corruption from various levels either
H
in Government services or in servk~es under the Corporation or ('70vemment
Companies. The Penal Code no doubt creates offences like those mentioned in
iS. 161 and 165 of the Code but they were not found sufficient to cope with the
present situation and the exvanding need9 of the nation. In these circumstances,
•
I
j
-
i
...
•
A
B
c
D
M.r. STATE v. M. v. NARASIMHAN (Fazal Ali, J.)
7
it was considered necessary to evolve a quick, expeditious and effective machinery
to destroy the evil of corruption existing in anv form.
If, therefore, the Penal
Code with the same object enlarged the definition of s. 21 by adding the twdfth
clause by virtue of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958 and the Anti-cor-
ruption Laws (Amendment) Act, 1964, there :s no reason why the extended mean-
ing to the provision of s. 2 of the Act as borrowed from s. 21 of the Penal Code
be not given to that section.
Otherw'.se the
Act would
become who11y un-
workablo.
[12D-FJ
St•crefary of StateExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.