Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 792 (MP)

O. P. Gupta v. State of M. P.

2007-07-25

B.M.GUPTA

body2007
ORDER 1. Undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the "Act") in Special Case No. 1/99 pending in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Morena. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 23rd February, 1998 he was posted as Executive Engineer, M.P. Vidyut Mandai at Sheopurkalan. He inspected oil mill of complainant Babulal and threatened him to initiate a recovery proceeding for Rs. 10,000/- against him. In this matter the petitioner received Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant on the ground that he will favour the petitioner in the case. After framing of the charge on 10th January, 2000, petitioner moved an application before the learned Judge praying therein to discharge him as he is not a Public Servant under the provisions of the Act, hence, he cannot be prosecuted for the aforementioned offences. His application being rejected vide order dated 18th June, 2004, this petition has been preferred by him. 3. The only question for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is a Public Servant under the Act and he can be prosecuted for the aforementioned offences? 4. In a recent pronouncement in the case of Naresh Kumar Madan v. State of M.P, judgment dated 10th April, 2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 519/07 [2007 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 60 = (2007) 4 SCC 766 ] the apex Court has observed that the officers of the Electricity Board are Public Servant and can be prosecuted for such offences. The relevant extracts of the judgment are as under :-- "Appellant is a Civil Engineer. He is employed in the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board .......... He allegedly took illegal gratification from the complainant for the purpose of grant of an electrical connection.............. A charge-sheet was filed against him under section 7 read with section 13 (1) (d)113 (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 charge-sheet was filed against him under section 7 read with section 13 (1) (d)113 (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 there against before the High Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment dated 2.8.2006. 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 Rimal Kumar Gupta v. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt [ 2001 (1) JLJ 267 ] wherein it has been held that employees of the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board are not public servants. 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..... 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 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. Laijit Rajshi Shah and others [ AIR 2000 SC 937 ]. Therein the Court was dealing with a case of 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. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merits in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed." 5. Therein the Court was dealing with a case of 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. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merits in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed." 5. After considering the definition of Public Servant under section 2 (c) of the Act as well as the de1inition of Public Servant given in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and also the definition of Public Servant given in section 81 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the apex Court has observed as quoted hereinabove. 6. During the course of argument Shri Dwivedi on behalf of the petitioner has cited the judgment of State of Maharashtra v. Laljit Rajshi Shah and others [2000 SCC (Cri) 533] and the case of Rimal Kumar Gupta v. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt [ 2001 (1) JLJ 267 ] in favour of petitioner, but vide aforementioned judgment in Naresh Kumar (supra), the apex Court has observed that the case of Rirnal Kumar Gupta (supra), does not lay down the correct law. With regard to the earlier judgment of the apex Court in the case of Laljit Rajshi Shah (supra), the apex Court has observed that in that case Court was dealing with a case of a Member of Co-operative Society. It was not dealing with the case of an employee of Statutory Corporation. The said decision, therefore, has no application to the facts of the present case. 7. In view of this the impugned order passed by the learned Judge does not appear erroneous. There appears no abuse of the process of the Court. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.