Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
G.S.K. Janardhana Rao And Anr. vs Guntupalli Guru Prasad And Anr. on 19 April, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(1)ALD(CRI)888, 2000(1)ALT(CRI)524, 2000CRILJ2927
Author: B. Subhashan Reddy
Bench: B. Subhashan Reddy
ORDER BSR, J.
1. Our learned Brother, Bilal Nazki, J have referred this criminal petition to us, in view of two important propositions which the learned Judge has framed, namely:
"1. Whether by including Municipal Commissioners in the list under Section 21 of I.P.C. it can be construed that all other employees of the Municipal Corporation are public servants?
2. Whether State legislature can identify officers as deemed public servants under section 21 of I.P.C. in the light of mandate of Article 254 of the Constitution of India?"
2. The learned Judge was of the prima facie view that there is conflict between the provisions of Indian Penal Code and that of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, 1955. According to the learned single Judge, while Section 21 of Indian Penal Code mentions that only the Municipal Commissioner is a public servant in case of Municipal Corporation, the same is extended by Section 680 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 to include not only the Commissioner, but also Deputy Commissioner and every Councillor and every officer or servant appointed under the said Act and every person appointed to make a valuation under sub-section (1) of Section 285 and every contractor or agent for the collection of any municipal tax and every servant or other person employed by any such contractor or agent, shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
We have considered this matter having regard to Section 21 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is a Central enactment as also Section 680 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, which is a State enactment. It is true that if there is a clash between the Central and State enactments, it is the Central Government enactment which will prevail over the State enactment unless the legislation like Indian Penal Code, which is from the concurrent list, has got the consent of the President if the State makes a law on the same subject already passed by the Parliament. But, such a situation did not arise in the instant case. In fact, Section 680 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 is perfectly in harmony with the provisions of Section 21 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Section 21 of Indian Penal Code defines as to who is the 'public servant' and Clause-12 (b) thereof reads:
"Every person 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."
4. In the illustration it is stated that "a Municipal Commissioner is a public servant", but the illustration does not control the statutory provision and is not having the effect of restricting the language employed regarding the definition of 'public servant'. No illustration is exhaustive and illustration cannot be interpreted as exhaustive as to enumeration of the 'public servant'. Under Section 21 of Indian Penal Code, whoever is in service or pay of a local authority or a Corporation established under the State Act (which is relevant here) is deemed to be public servant and who are public servants are enumerated in Section 680 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and as such, there is absolutely no contradiction or clash in between two statutory provisions enacted by Central and State Governments and in fact, they supplement each other. While every person in the service or pay of the local authority like Municipal Corporation is deemed to be public servant under Section 21 of Indian Penal Code, the same has been clearly pointed out in Section 680 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. In fact what is stated in Section 680 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 is the enumeration of the kinds of officers in the services of Municipal Corporation mentioned in Section 21 of Indian Penal Code.
5. In view of what is stated supra, we set aside the order of the Magistrate and quash the prosecution in C.C.No.194 of 1998 on the file of V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. It is needless to mention that this order shall not come in the way if the appropriate authority institutes any proceedings for grant of sanction for prosecution.