A R PURI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short, sweet and interesting question of law regarding the interpretation of the term "public servant" as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code with respect to a person working as an Assessor with an insurance company has arisen which requires going into on the following admitted facts,

(2.) Anoop Raj Pun is the proprietor of a firm, M/s. M. R. Puri and Co. This firm is engaged as a surveyor of insurance claims with their head office at New Delhi. Shri A..R. Puri is holding a licence for the said purpose, issued by the Controller of Insurance, New Delhi. It is acase of the prosecution that truck, Ford Make, Model 1981, bearing Registration No. RRB 3879 belongs to one Mr. M. S. Bhatia of Jaipur. It met with an accident in District Gurgaon. The said truck was insured with M/s. United India Insurance Company, Jaipur. Sardar Manohar Singh Bhatia lodged a claim of Rs. 1,32,549.57, as damages with the insurance company. Shri V. P. Chawla a private surveyor was deputed by the company to conduct the preliminary survey. He submitted his report on the 4th May, 1981 to the Divisional Office of the Company at Jaipur. As the estimated claim was beyond the sanctioning powers of the Manager of the insurance company, it was referred to the Regional Office. In order to verify the correctness of the estimate submitted by Shri V. P. Chawla, the Regional Office of the insurance company appointed M/s. M. R. Puri & Co. to survey and assess the loss. Shri Puri went to Jaipur on 5-5-81 and in the company of the owner inspected the truck at the shop of M/s. National Motors, It is the further case of the prosecution that Shri A. R. Puri, instructed the owner to contact him in the hotel on the next day. The accused is alleged to have made ademand of Rs. 8,000.00 as bribe on the plea that he would submit a suitable report and recommend the payment of Rs. 58,000.00 . At that time, he gave a threat that if this amount is not paid, he will spoil the case. As the story goes, Mr. M. S. Bhatia a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 to aftersome time. In his presence, the accused Mr. A. R. Puri wrote a letter, in his own hand-writing for and on behalf of Mr. Bhatia, intimating the Divisional Manager, Jaipur that he was agreeable to settle his claim at Rs. 58,000.00 . The accused also obtained his signatures.

(3.) After 213 days, the accused again contacted Mr. Bhatia on telephone and. renewed his demand of balance amount. Mr. Bhatia came to Delhi and contacted the accused at his residence. He explained .the difficulties in arranging the finance. The accused then reduced the demand Of Rs. 1500.00 . The accused directed Mr. Bhatia to come with the money in the morning of 17-5-81. However, on the same evening Mr. Bhatia made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, CBI who in turn laid a trap and. apprehended the accused after he had accepted Rs. 15001- from Mr. Bhatia. It is on these facts that the challan. under Section 161 Indian Penal Code . and Section 5(1) (d) road with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against tile accused was filed in the court below.