THE STATE OF AJMER (NOW RAJASTHAN) versus SHIVJI LAL

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 739 · Decided: 22-04-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2) S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
739 
may be reprehensible but that will not affect the 
'959 
interpretation to be put on s. 20(2)(b) of the Act. 
A dh 
. M . 1 
Section 12 lays down the duties of the Conciliation Kur7a ;~s ;:,:ice 
officer. He is required to bring about settlement 
& Another 
between the parties and must begin his investigation 
v. 
without delay and if no settlement is arrived at he is to 
The •State of 
submit his report to the appropriate Government. No 
Bombay 
doubt s. 12 contemplates that the report should be 
Kapur 1. 
made and the proceedings closed within a fortnight and 
if proceedings are not closed but are carried on, as they 
were in the present case, or if the Conciliation Officer 
does not make his report within 14 days he may be 
guilty of a breach of duty but in law the proceedings 
do not automatically come to an end after 14 days but 
only terminate as provided in s. 20(2)(b) of the Act. 
Colliery M azdoor Congress, Asansol v. New Beerbhoom 
Coal Co. Ltd (1). 
As the conciliation proceedings were 
pending at the time when Louis Pereira was dismissed 
the appellants were rightly convicted under s. 31(1) 
read with s. 33 of the Act. 
The appeal is therefore dismissed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
THE STATE OF AJMER (now RAJASTHAN) 
v. 
SHIVJI LAL 
(B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and 
K. N. WANCHOO JJ.) 
Public Servant-Teacher. in railway school-Whether public 
servant-Taking of money promising to procure a job-Whether 
illegal gratification-Criminal misconduct in the discharge of duty-
l ndian Penal Code (Act 45 of I86o), ss. 2I, cl. 9, I6I-Prevention 
of Corruption Act, I947 (2 of Ig47), ss. 4(I), S(I)(d), (2). 
The respondent who was a teacher in a railway school was 
prosecuted under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) read 
withs. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The 
(1) [1952] L.A.C. 219, 222. 
1959 
April n. 
'959 
Stale of Aj1nc1 
v. 
Shivji Lal 
740 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
prosecution case was that the respondent offered to secure a job 
for the complainant in the Railway I<unning Shed at Abu Road, 
if the latter paid him Rs. 100, that the complainant agreed to 
this, and that on October 5, 1954, the complainant wrote out an 
application addressed to the Divisional 'Mechanical Engineer, 
Abu Road, and banded it to the respondent and gave him Rs. 50 
promising to pay the balance of Rs. 50 after the job had ·been 
secured. The Special Judge who tried the case accepted the 
prosecution story and convicted the respondent on both the 
charges, but, on appeal, the High Court acquitted him on the 
ground that he was not a public servant. The State appealed to 
the Supreme Court. It was contended for the respondent that 
even if he were considered to be a public servant he could not be 
held guilty on either of the charges framed against him. It was 
found that neither in the charge framed under s. 16! of the 
Indian Penal Code nor in the evidence was there anything to 
show that the respondent intended to approach any pnblic ser-
vant in order to secure a job for the complainant. 
Held: (1) that the respondent was a public servant within 
the meaning of the ninth clause of s. 21 of the Indian Penal Code 
as he was in the service of Government, was being paid by it 
and was entrusted with the performance of a public duty inasmuch 
as he was a teacher in a school maintained by Government and it 
was part of his public duty to teach boys. 
G. A. Monterio v. The State of Ajmer, [1956] S.C.R. 682, 
followed. 
(2) that in view of the words "by otherwise abusing his 
position" read along with the words "in the discharge of his 
duty" ins. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, 
an offence under that section requires that the public servant 
should misconduct himself in the discharge of his duty. 
In the present case, as the respondent was only a teacher it 
was not part of his duty to make appointments in the Railway 
Running Shed at Abu Road, and consequently when he took 
money for procuring a job for the complainant he was not com-
mitting misconduct in the discharge of his duty. Accordingly, 
a conviction under s. 5(2) read withs. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act, 1947, was not valid. 
(3) that the mere fact that a person takes money in order to 
get a job for another person somewhere would not by itself be 
an offence under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and that as the 
charge under s. 161 did not" disclose who was the pu

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