NARESH KUMAR MADANversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                                                                        -+-
                                                                                              y
A                            NARESH KUMAR MADAN
                                            v.
                           STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                  -- APRIL IO, 2007

B                   [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
                                                                                                  ..
                                                                                              )
          Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

          s.2(c)(iii) [rlw s.21 Twelfth (h) IPC]-'Pub/ic.servant'-Ctvil Engineer
c in MP. Electricity Board-Caught accepting illegal gratification--Contention
    that his prosecution under the Act was not maintainable as he was not a
    public servant for the purposes of the Act-Held, the delinquent is a public
    servant within the provisions of the Act-Definition of 'public servant' will
    have to be construed having regard to provisions of the Act - Different
D   statutes may use the same term for different purposes-Interpretation of a
    term in one statute, however, cannot be done with reference to its definition                 -;.:-
    contained in another-Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948-s.81-Pena/ Code,
    1860-s.21, Twelfth(h)-/nterpretation of statutes.

          Appellant, a Civil Engineer in M.P. Electricity Board, was caught
E   accepting illegal gratification from the complainant A charge-sheet was filed
    against him under Section 7 read with Section 13(l)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention
    of Corruption Act, 1988. He filed an application contending that his
    prosecution under the Act was not maintainable since the term 'public servant'
    defined in s.81 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 does not satisfy the
    requirement of the definition as contained in s.21 IPC. The trial court rejected
F   the application. The High Court having rejected appellant's revision, he filed
                                                                                                  1-

    the present a11peal.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

          HELD: 1.1. Different statutes may use the same term for different
G purposes. A term or a word may be interpreted in the statute itself for fulftllirig
    the purport and object mentioned therein whereas in another statute it may
    be defmed differently. Interpretation of a term in one statute, however, cannot               ,.,.._._
    be done with reference to its definition contained in another. The object and
    purport of the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 is different from
H                                         1040
+
                    NARESH KUMAR MADAN v. STATEOFMADHYA PRADESH                1041

    the 1988 Act. It provides for constitution and composition of State Elec~ricity     A
    Board. (Paras 6, 7 and 12) (1042-F-G; 1044-C)

           1.2. By virtue of Sections 66, 78 and 78-A of the 1948 Act, State
    exercises a deep and pervasive control over the affairs of the Board. The
    officers of the State Electricity Board are required to carry out public
    functions. They are public authorities. It is only for proper and effective         B
    exercise of those powers, the statute provides that they would be public
    servants, wherefor a legal fiction has been created in favour of those
    employees, when acting or purported to act in pursuance of any of the
    provisions of the Act within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal
    Code. However, it may be noticed that a person who, inter alia, is in the service   C
    or pay of the Government established by or under a Central, Provincial or
    State Act, would also come within the purview thereof. Section 2(c )(iii) of the
    1988 Act also brings within its embrace a person in the service or pay of a
    corporation established by or order a Central Act. Definition of 'public servant'
    will have to be construed having regard to the provisions of the 1988 Act. By
    giving effect to the definition of 'public servant' in the 1988 Act, the legal      D
    fiction is not being extended beyond the purpose for which it was created or
    beyond the language of the section in which it was created. There is no reason
    as to why the appellant would not answer the description of public servant
    within the provision of the said Act.
                              (Paras 14, 16 and 19) (1044-G; 1045-A-C; 1046-E)          E
       Bimal Kumar Gupta v. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, (2001)
    1MPHT330: (2001) 3 JLJ 2, disapproved.

          Maharashtra v. La/it Rajashi Shah and Ors., AIR (2000) SC 937, held
    inapplicable.
                                                                                        F
            CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 519 of
    2007.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2006 of the High Court of
    Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur bench, Gwalior in Criminal Revision
    Petition No. 664 of2004.
                                                                                        G
         Rajiv Dutta, Asha Gopalan Nair, Brij Rajesh and Vikash Shanna for the
    Appellant.

            Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                  H
                                                                                         +
    1042                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A          S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

          2. Appellant is a Civil Engineer. He is employed in the Madhya Pradesh
    Electricity Board constituted in terms of Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply)
    Act, 1948 (for short, 'the 1948 Act'). It is a body corporate and can sue and
    be sued in its own name under Section 12 thereof.
B
          3. He allegedly took illegal gratification from the complainant for the
    purpose of grant of an electrical connection. A trap was laid and Appellant
    was allegedly caught red handed with a sum ofRs.1,000/-, which was accepted
    by him by way of illegal gratification from the complainant.

C          4. A charge-sheet was filed against him under Section 7 read with
    Section 13(l){d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 {for short 'the
     1988 Act'). An application was filed by him contending that he being not a
    public servant; his prosecution under the 1988 Act was not maintainable. The
    learned Trial' Judge rejected the said contention. A Revision Application was
D   filed by the appellant thereagainst before the High Court, which was dismissed
    hy the learned Single Judge of the High Court by reason of the impugned
    judgment dated 02.08.2006.

          5. Before the courts below as also before us, the contention of Appellant
    has been that 'public servant' having been defined in Section 81 of the 1_948
E   Act, the same does not satisfy the requirements of the definition as contained
    in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Strong reliance, in this behalf, has
    been placed on Bimal Kumar Gupta v. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt,
    (2001) 1MPHT330: (2001) 3 JLJ 2, wherein it has been held that employees
    of the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board are not public servants.

F          6. Different statutes may use the same term for different purposes. A
    term or a word may be interpreted in the statute itself for fulfilling the purport
    and object mentioned therein whereas in another statute it may be defined
    differently.

          7. Interpretation of a term in one statute, however, cannot be done with
G   reference to its definition contained in another. [See Raymond Ltd v. State
    o/Chhattisgarh and Ors., (2007) 3 SCALE 341]

          8. Keeping in view the aforementioned legal proposition, it may be
    necessary to construe the definition of the term 'public servant' occurring in
H   the relevant statutes.
              NARESHKUMARMADANv.STATEOFMADHYAPRADESH[S.B.SINHA,J.]             1043

           9. Section 2(1) (c) of the 1988 Act defines 'public servant' in the          A
     following terms :

              "(c) "public servant" means-

              (i) any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated
              by the Government by fees or commission for the performance of any        B
              public duty;

                            xxx        xxx

              (iii) any person in the service or pay of a corporation established by
              or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body    C
              owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government
              company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of
              1956);"

                            xxx         xxx

              Explanation 1.-                                                           D
·~

 i            Persons falling under any of the above sub-clauses are public servants,
              whether appointed by the Government or not.

              Explanation 2.-

              Wherever the words "public servant" occur, they shall be understood       E
              of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a
              public servant, whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold
              that situation."

             18. Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code defines 'public servant' to        F
     mean:

              "The words "public servant" denote a person falling under any of the
              descriptions bereinafter following; namely:-

                         xxx              xxx
                                                                                        G
              Twelfth.-Every person-

              (a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees
              or commission for the performance of any public duty by the
              Government;
                                                                                        H
                                                                                        -+--
    1044                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2007) 4 S.C.R.
                                                                                               ...
A           (b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established
            by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government company
            as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (I of 1956)."

          11. Section 81 of the 1948 Act provides that members, officers and
    servants of the Board to be public servant, stating :
B
            "81. Members, officers and servants of the Board to be public
            servants.-All members and officers and other employees of the Board
            shall be deemed, when acting or purporting to act in pursuance of any
            of the provisions of this Act, to be public servants within the meaning
            of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
c
          12. The object and purport of the provisions of the 1948 Act is different
    from the 1988 Act. It, as noticed hereinbefore, provides for constitution and
    composition of such Electricity Board. Each State is indeed enjoined with a
    duty to constitute a Board. (See Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Union
D   of India and Ors., (2006) (9) SCALE 194].

           13. Section 12 of the 1948 Act provides for incorporation of Board
    stating :

                "Incorporation of Board.-The Board shall be a body corporate
            by the name notified under sub-section (1) of section 5, having
E           perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire and
            hold property both movable and immovable, and shall by the said
            name sue and be sued."

           14. Section 15 of the 1948 Act empowers the Board to appoint a Secretary
F   and such other officers and employees as may be required to enable it to carry
    out its functions under the said Act. Appointment of a Secretary of the Board
    is subject to the approval of the State Government. Section 65 of the 1948 Act
    provides for power of the Board to borrow funds for the purposes mentioned
    therein wherefor however, previous sanction of the State Government would
    be required to be obtained. Section 66 thereof provides for furnishing of
G   guarantee in respect of such loan advanced by the State Government. Section
    78 of the 1948 Act empowers the State Government to make rules for the
    purposes mentioned therein. Section 78A empowers the State Government to
    issue directions upon the Board in the discharge of its functions. Such
    directions are binding upon the Board. State, therefore, exercises a deep and
H   pervasive control over the affairs of the Board.
        NARESHKUMARMADAN v. STATEOFMADHYAPRADESH[S.B.SINHA,J.)           1045

      15. The officers of the State Electricity Board are required to carry out   A.
public functions. They are public authorities. Their action in one way or the
other may entail civil or evil consequences to the consumers of electrical
energy. They may prosecute a person. They are empowered to enter into the
house of the Board's consumers. It is only for proper and effective exercise
of those powers, the statute provides that they would be public servants,         B
wherefor a legal fiction has been created in favour of those employees, when
acting or purported to act in pursuance of any of the provisions of the Act
within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Indian Penal Code
denotes various persons to be public servants. It is, however, not exhaustive.
A person may be a public servant in terms of another statute. However, we
may notice that a person who, inter alia, is in the service or pay of the         C
Government established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, would
also come within the purview thereof. Section 2(l)(c) of the 1988 Act also
brings within its embrace a person in the service or pay of a corporation
established by or under a Central Act.

      16. We, therefore, fail to see any reason as to why the appellant would D
not answer the description of public servant within the provisions of the said
Act. The decision of the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High
Co..xrt.hBimal Kumar Gupta (supra), in our opinion, does not lay down the"·
correct law. Referring to Section 81 of the 1948 Act, it held :

        "14. Considering the aforesaid provisions of law, it emerged that for E
        the purpose of the Act of 1947, a "public servant" is a person who
        is covered under the definition of 'public servant' as given under
        Section 21 of the IPC On careful perusal of the definition of 'public
        servant' as given in Section 21 of the IPC, it is found that the
        employees of the Electricity Board are not covered under any of the p
        clauses of the said Section. However, by virtue of Section 81 of the
        Electricity Supply Act, 1948, all the members, officers and employees
        of the Board when acting or purporting to act in pursuance of any of
       the provisions of the Act are deemed to be public servant under
       Section 21 of the IPC. As such, it can be inferred that by virtue of
       Section 81 of the Electricity Supply Act, the Board employees when G
       acting in pursuance of the provisions of the Act are considered
       'deemed public servants' under Section 21 of the IPC. But as held by
       the Apex Court in case of State ofMaharashtra v. Laljit Rajashi Shah
       (supra) on the ground of 'deemed provision' a person covered under
       the definition of Section 21 of the IPC cannot be considered 'public H
    1046                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2007) 4 S.C.R.

A          servant' for the purpose of prosecution under the provisions of the
           Prevention of Corruptions Act, 1947. In the aforesaid case, in view of
           the analogous provision of 'deemed to be public servant' for certain
           employees of the Cooperative Societies under Maharashtra
           Cooperative Societies Act, were not considered as public servant for
           the purpose of the Act of 1947"
B
          17. With respect we do not agree with the aforementioned inference of
    the learned Judge.

           18. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1?47 was repealed and enacted
C   in the year 1988. The definition of 'public servant', .as contained in Section
    2(c) thereof, is a broad based one. Reliance was placed by the learned Judge
    in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Laljit Rajashi Shah and Ors., AIR
    (2000) SC 93T: Therein the court was dealing with a case of a member of a
    cooperative society. It was not dealing with the case of an employee of a
    statutory corporation. The said decision, therefore, has no application to the
D   facts of the present case.

          19. Definition of 'public servant' will have to be construed having
    regard to the provisions of the 1988 Act. By giving effect to the definition
    of 'public servant' in the 1988 Act, the legal fiction is not being extenqed
    beyond the purpose for which it was created or beyond the language of the
E   section in which it was created.

         20. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merits in this appeal,
    which is accordingly dismissed.

    RP.                                                        Appeal dismissed.