MANISH TRIVEDI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Judgment

12 S.C.R. 205 MANISH TRIVEDI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 1881 of 2013) OCTOBER 29, 2013 [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] RAJASTHAN MUNICIPAL/TIES ACT, 1959: A B c s.87 of the Rajasthan Act rlw s.21, /PC and s.2(c)(viii) of PC Act -- 'Public servant' - Appellant, a Municipal Councillor and Member of Municipal Board - Held: Bys. 87 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, Legislature has created a fiction that every Member of Municipal Board shall be deemed to be a public D servant within the meaning of s. 21, /PC - Thus, appellant is a public servant within the meaning of s.21,IPC - Penal Code, 1860- s.21 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.2(c)(viii). PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: E s.2(c)(viii) - 'Public servant' - Held: Act envisages widening of the scope of definition of expression 'public servant' -- It was brought in force to purify public administration -- Legislature has used a comprehensive definition of 'public servant' to achieve the purpose of punishing and curbing F corruption among public servants -- Therefore, it would be inappropriate to limit the contents of definition clause by a construction which would be against the spirit of the statute - Interpretation of statute. s.2(c)(viii) - 'Public servant' - Appellant a Municipal G Councillor and Member of Municipal Board - Held: Is a public servant within the meaning of s.2(c) -- Clause (viii) of s.2(c) makes any person, who holds an office by virtue of which he 205 H 206 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 12 S.C.R. A is authorized or required to perform any public duty, to be a public seNant -- Word 'office' in the context would mean a position or place to which certain duties are attached and has an existence which is independent of the persons who fill it - - Councillors and Members of Municipal Board are positions B under Rajasthan Municipalities Act -- They perform various duties which are in the field of public duty -- Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 -- s.87-- Penal Code, 1860 - s.21. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: C Legal fiction - Held: Legislature is competent to create a legal fiction -- A deeming provision is enacted for the purpose of assuming the existence of a fact which does not really exist -- When legislature creates a legal fiction, court has to ascertain for what purpose the fiction is created and after D ascertaining this, to assume all those facts and consequences which are incidental or inevitable corollaries for giving effect to the fiction -- Legislature, while enacting s. 87 of Rajasthan Municipalities, has created a legal fiction for the purpose of assuming that the Members, otherwise, may not be public E seNants within the meaning of s.21 /PC but shall be assumed to be so in view of legal fiction so created -- Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 - s.87 -- Penal Code, 1860 - s.21. WORDS AND PHRASES: F 'Office' - Connotation of Prevention of Corruption Act,

#1988. A charge sheet for offences u/ss 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed G against the appellant, who at the relevant time was a Municipal Councillor and a Member of the Municipal Board. During the trial, the appellant filed an application before the trial court for dropping the proceeding, inter alia, contending that he being a Councillor did not come H within the definition of 'public servant' and, as such, he ' I MANISH TRIVEDI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 207 could not be put on trial for the offence charged. The trial A court rejected the prayer. The High Court also rejected his petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1 Admittedly, the appellant is an elected Councillor and a Member of the Municipal Board. Section 87 of the Act makes every Member to be public servant within the meaning of s. 21, IPC. The legislature, while enacting s.87 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 C has created a legal fiction for the purpose of assuming that the Members, otherwise, may not be public servants within the meaning of s.21 of the Penal Code but shall be assumed to be so in view of the legal fiction so created. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the D appellant is a public servant within the meaning of s.21 of the Penal Code. [para 14 & 15] [215-D, H; 216-A, C-D]

1.2 Legislature is competent to create a legal fiction. A deeming provision is enacted for the purpose of E assuming the existence of a fact which does not really exist. When the legislature creates a legal fiction, the court has to ascertain for what purpose the fiction is created and after ascertaining this, to assume all those facts and consequences which are incidental or inevitable corollaries for giving effect to the fiction. [para F 15] [216-A-C]

1.3 Under the scheme of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act it is evident that the appellant happens to be a Councillor and a Member of the Board. Further in view G of language of s.87, he is a public servant within the meaning of s.21 of the Penal Code. 'Public servant' has been defined u/s 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is relevant in the instant case. Prosecution under this Act can take place only of such persons, who H 208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 12 S.C.R. A come within the definition of public servant therein. The appellant is sought to be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and, therefore, to determine his status it would be necessary to look into its interpretation u/s 2(c) thereof, read with the provisions B of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. [para 17] [216-F-G; 217-A-C] State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakarrao, (2002) 7 SCC 636 - relied on. C

1.4 The 1988 Act envisages widening of the scope of the definition of the expression 'public servant'. It was brought in force to purify public administration. The legislature has used a comprehensive definition of 'public servant' to achieve the purpose of punishing and D curbing corruption among public servants. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to limit the contents of the definition clause by a construction which would be against the spirit of the statute. Bearing in mind this principle, there is no doubt that the appellant Is a public E servant within the meaning of s. 2(c) of the Act. Clause (viii) of s.2(c) makes any person, who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform any public duty, to be a public servant. The word 'office' is of indefinite connotation and, in the present context, it F would mean a position or place to which certain duties are attached and has an existence which is independent of the persons who fill it. Councillors and members of the Board are positions which exist under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. It is independent of the person who G fills it. They perform various duties which are in the field of public duty. It is, thus, evident that the appellant is a public servant within s.2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [para 19] [219-H; 220-A-E]

1.5 A Member of the Board, or for that matter, a H Councillor per se, may not come within the definition of MANISH TRIVEDI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 209 the public servant as defined u/s 21 of the Penal Code, A but this does not mean that they cannot be brought in the category of public servant by any other enactment. Section 87 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act makes Councillor and Member of Board come within a public servant within the meaning of s. 21 of the Penal Code. B Besides, in the case in hand, the meaning of the expression 'public servant' as defined u/s 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is significant and, therefore, decisions rendered by this Court while interpreting s. 21 of the Penal Code, which in substance c and content are substantially different than s. 2(c) of the 1988 Act, shall have no bearing at all for decision in the instant case. [para 20 and 22) [220-G-H; 221-A, F-G]