EMPEROR Vs. RAM CHANDRA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision in this appeal is, whether the complainant Pankdhar Meher was, on 25 February 1932, a "public servant" within the meaning of Section 21, Indian Penal Code. The complainant had for some time been enrolled as a candidate peon in accordance with Rule 30 of the High Court General Rules and Circular Orders. He gets no pay or remuneration, but by being on the list of candidate peons he has the chance of being appointed as a civil Court process server when a vacancy occurs.

(2.) The facts out of which this appeal has arisen were these:, The complainant was entrusted with the service of a warrant of attachment of moveable properties which had been issued in execution of a decree by the Munsif of Bargarh. On 25th February he went to the house of the judgment-debtor for the purpose of executing the warrant and attached some of his moveable property. Ram Chandra, the son of the judgment-debtor, then assaulted him and took away the property. Ram Chandra was put on his trial on charges of theft, of resisting the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant and of assaulting a public servant. The Deputy Magistrate who tried the case came to the conclusion that the complainant was not a public servant. In these circumstances he held that it was useless to enter into discussion of the merits of the case and he acquitted the accused.

(3.) The Government have appealed under Section 417, Criminal P.C. and the question for decision now is, whether the complainant was a public servant at the time he was resisted and assaulted. The material portions of Section 21, Penal Code, are Clauses 4 and 9. The material words of Clause 4 are as follows: Every officer of a Court of justice .... and every person specially authorized by a Court of justice to perform any of the duties of an officer of a Court of justice. This clause clearly distinguishes between the person who is an " officer of a Court of justice" and a person who is not such an officer; the latter is not a "public servant" within the meaning of the section tin-less he is "specially authorized" by a Court of justice to perform the duties of an officer of a Court of justice.