OM PARKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made to a Division Bench by my learned brother Soni, J. In which the question for determination is whether the petitioner, who is employed as an Assistant in the Laboratory of the Municipal Committee, of Simla, is a public servant within the meaning of that word as used in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and in section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947.

(2.) Under section 19 of the Punjab Municipal Act "Every officer, or servant employed by the committee, * * shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code." The Municipal Act no doubt was a local Act, but it received the assent of the Governor-General on the 7th of July, 1911 and therefore as far as the Punjab is concerned all Municipal servants would be public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Under section 107(2) of the Government of India Act of 1935 where a Provincial Law had received the assent of the Governor-General the Provincial Law in that Province would prevail. In Bombay, under section 521 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act of 1888, a Municipal servant was a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and in Emperor v. Elias Ezekiel, 6 BLR 54 the opinion of the Court was that he would be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, under section 554 of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923. a Municipal servant of the Corporation was a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and for the purposes of the Indian Penal Code he was so held by Cuming, J. in S.C. Nandi v. The Corporation of Calcutta, 24 CalWN 449.