MOHD ABDULLAH DAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted under section 353 R.P.C. and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/ -default to 15 days simple imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that the complainant Thakur Dass was driving bus No: 1272 JKA belonging to the Government Transport Undertaking near Shalimar. The accused -petitioner confronted Thakur Dass near Merik Shah demonstrated with him and dragged him out of the bus, gave him a beating and prevented him from driving the bus The accused first pleaded innocence and further urged that the complainant not being a public servant, no offence was committed by him. Both the courts below after carefully scanning the evidence led before the trial court in the case, came to the concurrent finding of fact that the prosecution case against the accused -petitioner was proved beyond any reasonable doubt and that Thakur Dass who was driving the bus belonging to the Govt. Transport Undertaking was obstructed from performing his duty and from discharging his functions. There is absolutely no error of law or of fact committed by the courts below.

(3.) MR . Hak, appearing in support of the rule however firstly submitted that the complainant Thakur Dass cannot be said to be a public servant because he was a driver of Government Transport Undertaking which is not a Government body. In my opinion the argument put forward by Mr. Hak is utterly misconceived. The word ËœPublic Servantâ„¢ used in Section 21 of the Ranbir Penal Code, is of a wider amplitude and is not used in the sense in -which a servant is defined in the statutory rules or in Section 126 of the State Constitution. Moreover Section 21 runs as under: - "The words Ëœpublic servantâ„¢ denotes a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following namely : - X X X Fifteenth: Every officer or servant, and every member (by whatever name called) of a corporation engaged in trade or industry or of any other autonomous body which is established by an Act of the State Legislature or of a Government Company as defined in any law for the time being in force of the State):" It is not disputed that the complainant was driving the bus belonging to the J&K Government Transport Undertaking which is undoubtedly a Government undertaking. With the broadening of the dimensions in the present democratic set up, the Government has also entered in the commercial field and that by itself will not mean that any employee or an officer of a Government undertaking would not be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Penal Code. Furthermore explanation I clinches the issue in this case. Explanation 1 to Sec: 21 runs as under . - "Persons falling under any of the above descriptions are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not." It is obvious therefore that the complainant Thakur Dass even though he may not have been appointed by the Government but by the Government Undertaking itself, which was a Government concern that by itself will not reduce his status from being that of a public servant in view of the Explanation 1 to Sec: 21 of the Penal Code. Being a servant of a Government Undertaking even though not appointed by the Government or by the State, he would be a public servant by force of the application of Explanation 1 to the Section. The intention of the legislature could not have been to deprive the servants of commercial concerns of the Government from the protection given to them by the Penal Code. For these reasons I am satisfied that the courts below were right in holding that the complainant was a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Penal Code. The first argument put forward by Mr. Hak is over -ruled.