http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  519 of 2007

PETITIONER: Naresh Kumar Madan

RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/2007

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.    519             OF 2007 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4529 of 2006]

S.B. SINHA,  J :

       Leave granted.

       Appellant is a Civil Engineer.  He is employed in the Madhya Pradesh  Electricity Board constituted in terms of Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply)  Act, 1948 (for short, ’the 1948 Act’).  It is a body corporate and can sue and  be sued in its own name under Section 12 thereof.  

       He allegedly took illegal gratification from the complainant for the  purpose of grant of an electrical connection.   A trap was laid and Appellant  was allegedly caught red handed with a sum of Rs.1,000/-, which was  accepted by him by way of illegal gratification from the complainant.           A charge-sheet was filed against him under Section 7 read with  Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,  1988  (for short  ’the 1988 Act’).  An application was filed by him contending that he being  not a public servant, his prosecution under the 1988 Act was not  maintainable. The learned Trial Judge rejected the said contention. A  Revision Application was filed by the appellant thereagainst before the High  Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court  by reason of the impugned judgment dated 02.08.2006.   

       Before the courts below as also before us, the contention of Appellant  has been that ’public servant’ having been defined in Section 81 of the 1948  Act, the same does not satisfy the requirements of the definition as contained  in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.  Strong reliance, in this behalf,  has  been placed on Bimal Kumar Gupta v. Special Police Establishment  Lokayukt [2001 (1) MPHT 330 : (2001) 3 JLJ 2], wherein it has been held  that employees of the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board are not public  servants.  

        Different statutes may use the same term for different purposes.  A  term or a word may be interpreted in the statute itself for fulfilling the  purport and object mentioned therein whereas in another statute it may be  defined differently.

       Interpretation of a term in one statute, however, cannot be done with  reference to its definition contained in another. [See Raymond Ltd. v. State  of Chhattisgarh and Others \026 (2007) 3 SCALE 341]

       Keeping in view the aforementioned legal proposition, it may be  necessary to construe the definition of the term  ’public servant’ occurring in  the relevant statutes.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

       Section 2(1) (c) of the 1988 Act defines ’public servant’ in the  following terms : "c) "public servant" means\027 (i) any person in the service or pay of the Government or  remunerated by the Government by fees or commission  for the performance of any public duty;         xxx                     xxx                     xxx  (iii) any person in the service or pay of a corporation  established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act,  or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by  the Government or a Government company as defined in  section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);"         xxx                     xxx                     xxx Explanation 1.\027 Persons falling under any of the above sub-clauses are  public servants, whether appointed by the Government or  not. Explanation 2.\027 Wherever the words "public servant" occur, they shall be  understood of every person who is in actual possession of  the situation of a public servant, whatever legal defect  there may be in his right to hold that situation."

       Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code defines ’public servant’ to mean : "The words "public servant" denote a person falling  under any of the descriptions hereinafter following;  namely:-         xxx                     xxx                     xxx Twelfth.--Every person-- (a) in the service or pay of the Government or  remunerated by fees or commission for the performance  of any public duty by the Government; (b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a  corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial  or State Act or a Government company as defined in  section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)."

       Section 81 of the 1948 Act provides that members, officers and  servants of the Board to be public servant, stating :

"81.    Members, officers and servants of the Board to be  public servants.-All members and officers and other  employees of the Board shall be deemed, when acting or  purporting to act in pursuance of any of the provisions of  this Act, to be public servants within the meaning of  section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

       The object and purport of the provisions of the 1948 Act is different  from the 1988 Act.  It, as noticed hereinbefore, provides for constitution and  composition of such Electricity Board.  Each State is indeed enjoined with a  duty to constitute a Board.  [See Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Union  of India and Others [2006 (9) SCALE 194].

       Section 12 of the 1948 Act  provides for incorporation of Board  stating :

       "Incorporation of Board.-The Board shall be a  body corporate by the name notified under sub-section  (1) of section 5, having perpetual succession and a  common seal, with power to acquire and hold property  both movable and immovable, and shall by the said name  sue and be sued."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

       Section 15 of the 1948 Act empowers the Board to appoint a Secretary  and such other officers and employees as may be required to enable it to  carry out its functions under the said Act.  Appointment of a Secretary of the  Board is subject to the approval of the State Government.  Section 65 of the  1948 Act provides for power of the Board to borrow funds for the purposes  mentioned therein wherefor however, previous sanction of the State  Government would be required to be obtained.  Section 66 thereof provides  for furnishing of guarantee in respect of such loan advanced by the State  Government.  Section 78  of the 1948 Act empowers the State Government  to make rules for the purposes mentioned therein.  Section 78A empowers  the State Government to issue directions upon the Board in the discharge of  its functions.  Such directions are binding upon the Board. State, therefore,  exercises a deep and pervasive control over the affairs of the Board.  

       The officers of the State Electricity Board are required to carry out  public functions.  They are public authorities.  Their action in one way or the  other may entail civil or evil consequences to the consumers of electrical  energy.  They may prosecute a person.  They are empowered to enter into  the house of the Board’s consumers.  It is only for proper and effective  exercise of those powers, the statute provides that they would be public  servants, wherefor a legal fiction has been created in favour of those  employees, when acting or purported to act in pursuance of any of the  provisions of the Act within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal  Code.  Indian Penal Code denotes various persons to be public servants.  It  is, however, not exhaustive.  A person may be a public servant in terms of  another statute.  However, we may notice that a person who, inter alia, is in  the service or pay of the Government established by or under a Central,  Provincial or State Act, would also come within the purview thereof. Section  2(1)(c) of the 1988 Act also brings within its embrace a person in the service  or pay of a corporation established by or under a Central Act.   

       We, therefore, fail to see any reason as to why the appellant would not  answer the description of public servant within the provisions of the said  Act.   The decision of the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High  Court in Bimal Kumar Gupta (supra), in our opinion, does not lay down the  correct law.  Referring to Section 81 of the 1948 Act, it held :

"14. Considering the aforesaid provisions of law, it  emerged that for the purpose of the Act of 1947, a  "public servant" is a person who is covered under the  definition of ’public servant’ as given under Section 21 of  the IPC On careful perusal of the definition of ’public  servant’ as given in Section 21 of the IPC, it is found that  the employees of the Electricity Board are not covered  under any of the clauses of the said Section. However, by  virtue of Section 81 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948,  all the members, officers and employees of the Board  when acting or purporting to act in pursuance of any of  the provisions of the Act are deemed to be public servant  under Section 21 of the IPC. As such, it can be inferred  that by virtue of Section 81 of the Electricity Supply Act,  the Board employees when acting in pursuance of the  provisions of the Act are considered ’deemed public  servants’ under Section 21 of the IPC. But as held by the  Apex Court in case of Stale of Maharashtra Vs. Laljit  Rajashi Shah (supra) on the ground of ’deemed provision’  a person covered under the definition of Section 21 of the  IPC cannot be considered ’public servant’ for the purpose  of prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of  Corruptions Act, 1947. In the aforesaid case, in view of  the analogous provision of ’deemed to be public servant’  for certain employees of the Cooperative Societies under  Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, were not  considered as public servant for the purpose of the Act of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

1947\005"  

       With respect we do not agree with the aforementioned  inference of  the learned Judge.   

       The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was  repealed and enacted in  the year 1988.  The definition of ’public servant’, as contained in Section  2(c) thereof,  is a broad based one.  Reliance was placed by the learned  Judge in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Laljit Rajashi Shah and Others  [AIR 2000 SC 937].  Therein the court was dealing with a case of a member  of a cooperative society.  It was not dealing with the case of an employee of  a statutory corporation.  The said decision, therefore, has no application to  the facts of the present case.    

       Definition of ’public servant’ will have to be construed having regard  to the provisions of the 1988 Act.  By giving effect to the definition of  ’public servant’ in the 1988 Act, the legal fiction is not being extended  beyond the purpose for which it was created or beyond the language of the  section in which it was created.           For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merits in this appeal,  which is accordingly dismissed.