STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus JAGATSING CHARANSINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 13-08-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

)- ' 
-
) 
4 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
299 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
JAGATSING CHARANSINGH AND ANR. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Penal Code-Public Servant receiving illegal gratification-
lngredients of the offence-Failure to specify public servant in 
charge sheet-Whether vitiates the trial-Servant of a corpora-
tion-When is a person acting or purporting to act in official 
capacity-Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( 45 of 1860) ss. 21, 161, 197-
Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (64 of 1950), s. 43. 
One Dongarsing obtained 
an application form for applying 
to the Transport Corporation at Dhulia for his employment as a 
truck driver under the Corporation. 
He subsequently met res-
pondent no. 2 who was employed in the transport department of 
the corporation. 
Respondent No. 2 promised to get Dongarsing 
the employment provided he paid money to respondent 
no. 
1 
who was an officer in the transport department at Dhulia. 
Respondent no. 2 took him to Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 50.00 
was agreed to be paid to Respondent no. 1 as bribe and Rs. 25.00 
was immediately paid and the balance was paid later. 
Dongarsing 
not having obtained the job as promised got suspicious 
and 
therefore got into touch with the anticorruption 
department. 
A 
trap was laid for catching respondent no. 1 and Rs. 30.00 was 
paid to respondent 1 in currency notes to which anthracene powder 
was applied. 
Police thereafter caught respondent 1 with the 
anthracene powder on his fingers and in his pocket though he 
threw away the currency note. 
Both the respondents were prose-
cuted for the commission of an offence under s. 161 
of Indian 
Penal Code. 
The trial court acqq.itted respondent no. 2 on the ground that 
he 
was 
not 
present when 
Rs. 30.00 were given to respon-
dent 1 and that there was no evidence to convict him for abet-
ment. 
Regarding respondent no. 1 the court found that he had 
accepted the bribe of Rs. 30.00 but on the finding that he was 
not a public servant either under s. 21 Indian Penal Code or s. 
43 of the Indian Transport Corporation Act, 1950, acquitted him 
also. 
The State appealed to the High Court of Bombay. The High 
Court posed two questions namely ( 1) whether respondent no. 1 
was a public servant within s. 21 of Indian Penal Code read 
with s. 43 of the Transport Act and (2) whether the ingredients 
of s. 161 Penal Code had been proved. The High Court did not 
decide the first question. 
Regarding the second question relying 
on the decision of the Court in the State of Ajmer v. Shivjilal, 
[1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 739, the High Court held that as there 
was no averment in the complaint or evidence as to the 
public 
servant who was to be approached, respondent no. 1 had to br 
1963 
August 13 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
1963 
acquitted. It confirmed the acquittal of 
respondent no. 2 also. 
State of 
Maharashtra 
v. 
fagatsingh 
Charansingh 
and Another 
The present appeal is by way of special leave granted by this 
court. 
In the present appeal the same contentions raised before the 
High Court were raised. 
Held; (1) Where a person is a public servant in the very 
office where the appointment is to be made and takes money 
in 
order to get the appointment made there is no further question 
of the charge or evidence indicating who was the other 
public 
servant with ·whom the service would be rendered. It was enough 
if it was shown that money was paid to a public servant in 
a particular department by which an order would be made and 
if it was taken for doing an official act in that department. That 
part of s. 161 which was considered in Shivajilal's case is a 
distinct part where it would be necessary to show who was the 
other public servant who would be approached. 
The other part 
of s. 161 applies not only to receiving gratification by the man foe 
himself but also for any other person so long as he is in a 
position by virtue of his being a public servant to do or to for-
bear from doing an official act. The High Court was not therefore 
right in applying the ratio in Shivajilal's case to the facts of thi• 
case. 
(2) Respondent no. 1 would not be a public servant under s. 21 
of Penal Code as it stood at the time of the commission of the 
offence and before it was amended by Act 2 of 1958. 
Only when an officer or servant of a corporation is acting or 
purporting to act in persuance of any of the provisions of the 
Transport Corporation Act or of any other law that he 

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