{"id":249464,"date":"1957-05-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1957-05-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957"},"modified":"2018-06-24T01:55:33","modified_gmt":"2018-06-23T20:25:33","slug":"s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957","title":{"rendered":"S. G Angoli vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh(And … on 14 May, 1957"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S. G Angoli vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh(And … on 14 May, 1957<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nS. G ANGOLI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH(and connected appeal)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/05\/1957\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\n       Prevention   of\t Corruption-Railway   Servant\tunder\tthe\n       Government-If  a Public servant under the Act-Prevention\t of\n       Corruption Act<\/a>, 1947 (11 Of I947), S. 2-Indian<\/a> Railways Act,\n       1890 (9 of 1890), s.\t137(4)<\/a>-Indian  Penal  Code<\/a>  (45\t of\n       1860), S. 21<\/a>.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n       The  two\t appellants, who were railway  servants\t under\tthe\n       Government, were put up on trial under S. 120B<\/a> of the Indian\n       Penal  Code and s. 5(2)<\/a> read with s. 5(1)(c)<\/a> and 5(1)(d)<\/a>\t of\n       the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.\tThe Sessions  judge\n       who  tried the case found, in agreement with  the  unanimous\n       opinion\t of  the  assessors,  the  appellants  guilty\tand\n       sentenced appellant No. i to rigorous imprisonment for three\n       years  and appellant No. 2 to rigorous imprisonment for\ttwo\n       years.\tThe  High  Court on appeal affirmed  the  order\t of\n       conviction  and sentences passed on the appellants.  It\twas\n       contended on behalf of the appellants in this court that the\n       order  of conviction and the sentences passed on\t them  were\n       illegal\tas they were not public servants under S. 2<\/a> Of\tthe\n       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.\n       Held,  that it was apparent from the words \" for any of\tthe\n       purposes\t of  that Code \" used by s. 137(4)<\/a>  Of\tthe  Indian\n       Railways\t Act, 1890, as it stood prior to its  amendment\t in\n       1955, that the bar created by that sub-section applied,\tand\n       was  confined, to the purposes of the Indian Penal Code<\/a>\tand\n       could not be extended beyond its provisions.  In respect\t of\n       offences other than those under the Code<\/a>, therefore, neither\n       sub-s. (1) Of s. 137<\/a>, which applied only to offences  under'\n       Ch.   IX of the Code, nor sub-s. (4) of that  section  could\n       apply  and  the question whether a railway  servant  charged\n       with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act<\/a>,  1947,\n       was  a  public servant or not must be, decided under  s.\t of\n       that Act.\n       29i\n       Section\t2<\/a> of the Prevention of Corruption Act  adopts,\tthe\n       definition  of  a public servant contained in S. 21<\/a>  Of\tthe\n       Indian  Penal  Code,  and since the  main  offences  charged\n       against\tthe appellants were under that Act, and\t not  under\n       the  Code<\/a>,  S. 2<\/a> Of the Act would apply and  they  would\t be\n       public servants within the meaning thereof.\n       Devi  Ram  Deep Chand v. The State<\/a>, A.I.R.  1954\t Punj.\t189\n       disapproved.\n       Ram Krishan v. The State of Delhi<\/a>, [1956] S.C.R. 182 and\n       C.   A.\tMontorio v. The State of Ajmer, [1956] S.C.R.  682,\n       considered.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
       CRIMINAL\t APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals  Nos.\t 20
\n       and 21 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
       Appeals\tby special leave from the judgment and order  dated
\n       September  14,  1955, of the Allahabad High  Court  (Lucknow
\n       Bench)  at Lucknow in Criminal Appeals Nos. 374 and  376\t of
\n       1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated the  April
\n       24, 1954, of the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, in Sessions  Trial
\n       No. 106 of 1951.\n<\/p>\n
       R.   L.\tAnand and S. N. Anand, for the appellant in Cr.\t A.
\n       No. 20 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
       N.   C. Chatterjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant in
\n       Cr.  A. No. 21 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
       H.   R. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
\n       1959.  May 14.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n       GAJENDRAGADKAR  J.-Are  the appellants S. Gangoli  and  P.R.
\n       Chaudhri (hereafter called appellants I and 2  respectively)
\n       public  servants under s. 2<\/a> of the Prevention of\t Corruption
\n       Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) (hereafter called the Act) ? That
\n       is  the short question which arises for our decision in\tthe
\n       present appeal.\tThat question arises in this way.
\n       Chaudhri\t  had  been  posted  as\t Assistant  Permanent\tWay
\n       Inspector,  Sultanpur, East Indian Railway, in March,  1948,
\n       in  the\tLucknow\t E.I.R. Division.  Gangoli  was\t posted\t as
\n       Assistant  Pay Clerk in the Lucknow E.I.R.  Division  during
\n       the  same period.  The case against the appellants was  that
\n       they  had committed an offence under S. 120B<\/a> of\tthe  Indian
\n       Penal Code and
\n       s.   5(2)<\/a> read with ss. 5(1)(c)<\/a> and 5(1)(d)<\/a> of the Act.\tIt
\n       292<\/span>
\n       appears that in accordance with the Pay Commission’s  Report
\n       a sum of Rs. 16,685 was entrusted to appellant No. 2 by\tthe
\n       railway\tdepartment  to be disbursed among  Class  IV  staff
\n       working\tunder appellant No. 1. This payment had to be  made
\n       in the presence of, and was to be attested by, appellant No.\n<\/p>\n
       1.  According  to the prosecution both  the  appellants\thad
\n       entered into a criminal conspiracy to misappropriate a  part
\n       of  the said government amount entrusted to appellant No.  2
\n       by paying to the respective members of Class IV staff lesser
\n       amounts than those to which they were entitled and by making
\n       entries\tin the pay-sheets which purported to show that\tthe
\n       due amounts had been paid to them.  In accordance with  this
\n       conspiracy payment was made on March 11, 1948, in a  running
\n       train  between Faizabad and Chilbila and the entries in\tthe
\n       pay-sheets  show that the whole of the amount of Rs.  16,591
\n       had been paid to 216 employees.\tThe entries also show  that
\n       the  payment had been made by appellant No. 2 and  the  same
\n       had  been  attested by appellant No. 1. In  fact\t the  whole
\n       amount  had not been disbursed to the employees who  in\tall
\n       were paid Rs. 1,555 less.  In this manner the two appellants
\n       had  misappropriated  the  sum of about Rs.  1,555  and\thad
\n       falsified the paysheets in pursuance of their conspiracy.
\n       Within  a few days of the said payment the employees  became
\n       suspicious because they learnt that persons recruited on the
\n       same day had been paid larger amounts as arrears.  Thereupon
\n       they approached the higher officers and made a complaint\t to
\n       them.   They  were  advised to present  their  grievance\t in
\n       writing\tand as a result some of the employees  did  present
\n       applications  in\t writing  complaining  that  they  had\tnot
\n       received\t  the\tdue  payment  of  their\t  arrears.    These
\n       representations\tled  to an enquiry and Mr. Dalip  Singh\t in
\n       fact recorded some of the statements OD April 6 and 7, 1948.
\n       The  prosecution\t alleges  that\tthis  development   alarmed
\n       appellant  No. 1\t and he tried to hush  up  the\tmatter\tby
\n       calling\tall  the men together and paying them  the  amounts
\n       which  had  been previously wrongfully deducted\tfrom  their
\n       arrears.\t It is the prosecution case that on this day  three
\n       documents were
\n\t\t\t\t   293<\/span>
\n       executed,  Exs. 5, 10 and 11, which would clearly show  that
\n       the  appellants had committed the offences  charged  against
\n       them.\n<\/p>\n
       Both  the appellants denied the charges.\t They pleaded  that
\n       they  had not entered into any conspiracy and it\t was  their
\n       suggestion  that\t they had been falsely\timplicated  in\tthe
\n       present case.  Appellant No. 1 pleaded that the case against
\n       him had been started, and false evidence had been secured by
\n       H.N.  Das with the aid of Shambu because\t relations  between
\n       him and Das were not friendly.  Appellant No. 2 pleaded that
\n       he  had\tbeen falsely implicated because,  contrary  to\tthe
\n       suggestion  of  the  police, he\thad  refused  to  implicate
\n       appellant  No. 1. According to them the evidence adduced\t by
\n       the prosecution was interested and false, and the  documents
\n       produced by it were either fabricated or irrelevant.
\n       In   support  of\t its  case  the\t prosecution  examined\t 44
\n       witnesses, relied upon the three documents Exs. 5, 10 and 11
\n       and  urged  that the charges framed against  the\t appellants
\n       were clearly established by the said evidence.  The  learned
\n       Sessions\t Judge\tat Lucknow who tried the case  against\tthe
\n       appellants   agreed  with  the  unanimous  opinion  of\tthe
\n       assessors  and  held  that the charges  framed  against\tthe
\n       appellants  had been proved beyond a reasonable\tdoubt  file
\n       accordingly   convicted\tthem  of  the  said  offences\tand
\n       sentenced  appellant No. 1 to suffer  rigorous  imprisonment
\n       ‘for  three  years and appellant No. 2 to  -suffer  rigorous
\n       imprisonment for two years.\n<\/p>\n
       This order of conviction and sentence was challenged by\tthe
\n       appellants  by  preferring  appeals in  the  High  Court\t of
\n       Judicature at Allahabad.\t These appeals, however, failed and
\n       the High Court substantially agreed with the conclusions\t of
\n       the learned trial judge.\t Mr. Justice Kidwai who beard these
\n       appeals\tno doubt partly accepted the defence plea and  held
\n       that  Das was not a reliable witness and that he might  have
\n       been responsible for the fabrication of Ex. 10.\tThe learned
\n       judge  also  found that Shambu was  likewise  an\t unreliable
\n       witness.\t  Even so it was held that the evidence of  gangmen
\n       was on the whole satisfactory and that the
\n       204<\/span>
\n       documents  Exs.\t5 and I 1 corroborated\tthe  oral  evidence
\n       adduced\tby  the prosecution.  In the result  the  order\t of
\n       conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the
\n       trial judge was confirmed.  It is against this order  passed
\n       by  the\tHigh Court that the appellants have  preferred\tthe
\n       present\tappeals by special leave; and the only point  which
\n       they  have  raised before us is that  their  conviction\tand
\n       sentence\t are illegal because they are not  public  servants
\n       under s. 2<\/a> of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
       Section 2<\/a> of the Act provides that for the purposes of  this
\n       Act  public servant means a public servant as defined in\t s.
\n       21<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code.  It is not disputed that  under
\n       s.  21<\/a> the appellants are public servants.  The East  Indian
\n       Railway\twhich  has  employed  the  appellants  was  at\tthe
\n       material\t time owned by the Government of India and  managed
\n       and run by it, and so if the status of the appellants had to
\n       be judged at the material date solely by reference to s.\t 21<\/a>
\n       of  the\tCode there would be no difficulty in  holding  that
\n       they are public servants as defined by the said section.
\n       It is, however, urged that, for determining the status of  a
\n       railway servant, it is necessary to consider s. 137<\/a> of.\tthe
\n       Indian  Railways\t Act<\/a>,  1890 (Act 9 of  1890).\tIt  may\t be
\n       recalled\t that  when  this Act was  passed  almost  all\tthe
\n       railways\t in India were owned and managed by public  limited
\n       companies and as such railway servants as defined by s. 3(7)<\/a>
\n       of the Railways Act could not be treated as public  servants
\n       under   s.  21<\/a>  of  the\tCode.\tAfter  the  railways   were
\n       nationalised and taken over by the Government of India, this
\n       position\t  has  materially  altered.   But  prior   to\tthe
\n       nationalisation\tof railways, the position was that  railway
\n       servants as such did not fall under s. 21<\/a> of the Code.  That
\n       is why s. 137(1)<\/a> and (4) purported to bring them within\tthe
\n       definition of public servants contained in the said section.
\n       Sub-s.  (1)  of s. 137<\/a> provides that every  railway  servant
\n       shall  be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes\t of
\n       ch.  IX of the Indian Penal Code<\/a>.  The effect of\t this  sub-
\n       section\tis  to treat railway servants  as  public  servants
\n       under  s. 21<\/a> for the purpose of offences relating to  public
\n       servants\t which are dealt with by ss. 161<\/a> to 171<\/a> is ch.\t IX
\n       of the Code.  It is thus clear that the
\n\t\t\t\t   295<\/span>
\n       result  of this provision was to treat railway  servants\t as
\n       public  servants\t even  though  they  did  not  satisfy\tthe
\n       requirements  of the definition of s. 21<\/a>.   Having  provided
\n       for the extension of the said definition to railway servants
\n       for  the\t purposes  of  ch.   IX\t of  the  Code,\t subs.\t(4)
\n       prescribed that notwithstanding anything contained in s.\t 21<\/a>
\n       of  the\tIndian Penal Code a railway servant  shall  not\t be
\n       deemed  to  be a public servant for any of the  purposes\t of
\n       that  Code except these mentioned in sub-s. (1).\t It  is\t on
\n       this sub-section that the appellants’ argument is based.\t It
\n       is  urged by Mr. B. L. Anand that this  sub-section  clearly
\n       provides\t that  railway servants shall not be deemed  to\t be
\n       public  servants\t except for the purposes of  ch.   IX;\tand
\n       since  the appellants had not been charged with any  of\tthe
\n       offences\t in ch.\t IX of the Code they cannot be\ttreated\t as
\n       public servants for the offences under ss. 5(1)<\/a> and 5(2)<\/a>\t of
\n       the  Act.  It is true that these two sub-sections have  been
\n       amended by Act 17 of 1955.  Sub-s. (4) has been deleted\tand
\n       sub-s.  (1) now provides that every railway servant being  a
\n       public servant as defined in s. 21<\/a> of the Indian Penal  Code
\n       shall  be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes\t of
\n       ch.  1X and s. 409<\/a> of that Code.\t In other words, under\tthe
\n       amended\tprovision  of s. 137(1)<\/a> railway servants  would\t be
\n       deemed to be public servants under s. 21<\/a> of the Indian Penal
\n       Code  only  for the purpose of eh.  IX and s.  409<\/a>  of  that
\n       Code.  We are, however, concerned with the provisions of\t s.
\n       137<\/a> prior to its amendment in 1955.\n<\/p>\n
       Now  s. 137<\/a>, sub-s. (4) opens with the  non-obstante  clause
\n       and  expressly  states that a railway servant shall  not\t be
\n       deemed  to  be a public servant for any of the  purposes\t of
\n       that  Code subject of course to the exception  mentioned\t in
\n       sub-s.  (1).  The argument is that the  non-obstante  clause
\n       has the effect of excluding the application of s. 21<\/a> of\tthe
\n       Code in all cases except those falling under ch.\t IX of\tthe
\n       Code;  and  it  is urged that  since  the  offences  charged
\n       against the appellants are outside ch.  IX of the Code, sub-
\n       s.  (4)\tcreates\t a  bar against\t treating  them\t as  public
\n       servants\t for  the  purpose  of\tthe  said  offences.   This
\n       argument, however, ignores the relevant words ” for any
\n       296<\/span>
\n       of  the\tpurposes of that Code” used in sub-s.  (4).   These
\n       words  indicate that the bar created by sub-s. (4)  applies,
\n       and is confined, to the purposes of that Code and cannot\t be
\n       extended\t beyond the said purposes.  What subs.\t(4)  really
\n       provides\t is  that if a railway servant is  charged  for\t an
\n       offence under the Indian Penal Code<\/a> and the said offence\t is
\n       outside ch. IX of the Code he cannot be treated as a  public
\n       servant.\t  This sub-section does not purport, or\t intend\t to
\n       make any provision in respect of offences which are  outside
\n       the  Penal Code<\/a>, In respect of such offences neither  sub-s.
\n       (1) nor sub-s. (4) of the Railways Act<\/a> would apply, and\tthe
\n       question\t as  to whether railway servants  fall\twithin\tthe
\n       mischief\t of  the Act must be decided in the  light  of\tthe
\n       provisions of the said Act itself.\n<\/p>\n
       That takes us to the question whether the appellants can\t be
\n       said to be public servants under s. 2<\/a> of the Act.  S. 2,\t as
\n       we  have indicated, in substance incorporates in itself\tthe
\n       definition  of  a public servant contained in s. 21<\/a>  of\tthe
\n       Indian Penal Code.  There can be no doubt that the effect of
\n       s. 2<\/a> of the Act is that the status of accused persons has to
\n       be  determined  by the application of s. 21<\/a>  of\tthe  Indian
\n       Penal  Code as if the said section had been included in\tthe
\n       Act.   If  that\tbe  so the  appellants\tcannot\tresist\tthe
\n       conclusion  that they are public servants under s. 2<\/a> of\tthe
\n       Act.  The contention that because s. 2<\/a> of the Act refers\t to
\n       s. 21<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code the bar created by s.  137(4)<\/a>
\n       of the Railways Act would inevitably come into operation\t is
\n       unsound.\t The said bar can be invoked only if the status\t of
\n       the  accused person is being determined for any purposes\t of
\n       the  Code<\/a> other than those of ch. IX.  In the  present  case
\n       the  main offences charged are under the Act and\t not  under
\n       the Code<\/a>, and so s. 137<\/a>.(4) in inapplicable.
\n       With regard to the construction of s. 137(4)<\/a> there is
\n       another\tconsideration  which may be indicated.\t S.  137(1)
\n       brings  within the definition of s. 21<\/a> of the  Code  railway
\n       servants\t who but for it would not have satisfied the  tests
\n       laid  down  in s. 21<\/a>.  The deeming provision of\tsub-s.\t(1)
\n       would be clearly inappropriate
\n\t\t\t\t   297<\/span>
\n       and  unnecessary if the railway servants concerned could\t be
\n       treated\tas  public servants under s. 21<\/a> itself.\t  In  other
\n       words,\trailway\t  servants   employed\tby   the    railway
\n       administration  owned  and conducted by\tthe  Government\t of
\n       India  would be public servants under s. 21<\/a> as such  without
\n       recourse\t to the statutory fiction introduced by s.  137(1)<\/a>.
\n       Having  provided\t for this statutory fiction  by\t sub-s.(1),
\n       sub-s. (4) purports to cover the same ambit and to deal with
\n       the same class of railway servants and it provides that this
\n       class  of persons shall not be deemed to be public  servants
\n       except as mentioned in sub-s. (1).  This negative  statutory
\n       fiction is only intended to emphasise the fact that  persons
\n       who  are treated as public servants by virtue of sub-s.\t(1)
\n       can  be dealt with only under the provisions of ch.   II\t of
\n       the  Code and no other.\tCould it have been intended by\tthe
\n       Legislature  that sub-s. (4) should exclude the\tapplication
\n       of the provisions of the Code<\/a> other than those contained\t in
\n       ch.   IX\t to railway servants who would be  public  servants
\n       under s. 21<\/a> without the aid of sub-s. (1) of s. 137<\/a> ?  Prima
\n       facie  such an intention cannot be attributed to the  Legis-
\n       lature.\tIt is true that the non-obstante clause lends  some
\n       assistance  to the argument of the appellants that with\tthe
\n       exception  of  the provisions of ch. 1X, s. 21<\/a> of  the  Code
\n       would be inapplicable to railway servants; but the said non-
\n       obstacle\t clause\t cannot prima facie be wider in\t its  scope
\n       than sub-s. (1) of the card section.  The said  non-obstante
\n       clause has apparently been inserted ex abundanti cautela (1)
\n       to  clarify  the effect of s. 137(1)<\/a>.  The  two\tsubsections
\n       introduce a positive and a negative fiction respectively and
\n       thereby\tachieve\t the same result.  However,  since  we\tare
\n       concerned  with the provisions of the Act and not  with\tany
\n       provisions  of the Code<\/a> other than ch. 11 it is\tunnecessary
\n       to  pursue this point any further and to express a  definite
\n       opinion on this aspect of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
       We  must now refer to the decisions to which  our  attention
\n       was  invited.  The first case on which Mr. Anand\t relied\t is
\n       the decision of the Punjab High
\n       (1)  (1955)  2 S. C. R. 977 – Rai Bahadur Kanwar Raj Nath  &
\n       Ors. v. Pramod C. Bhatt, Custodian of Evacuee Property<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
       38<\/span>
\n       298<\/span><\/p>\n
       Court in Devi Ram Deep Chand v. The State<\/a> (1).  In that case
\n       the  accused were goods clerks employed by the  railway\tand
\n       they  were  being prosecuted in the court of  a\tFirst-Class
\n       Magistrate  on charges under S. 408<\/a> of the Penal\t Code.\t It
\n       was urged on their behalf that the offences alleged  against
\n       them  were in substance offences under s. 5<\/a> of the Act,\tand
\n       that they could be tried by a special judge alone.  That\t is
\n       why  the\t High Court was moved for a transfer  of  the  case
\n       against\tthem  from the court where it was  pending  to\tthe
\n       court  of the special judge.  From the judgment of the  High
\n       Court   it  clearly  appears  that  the\tlearned\t  Assistant
\n       Advocate-General intimated to the Court that the prosecution
\n       did  not\t propose  to frame or prove a  charge  against\tthe
\n       appellants under s. 5<\/a> of the Act.  Therefore s. 2<\/a> of the Act
\n       did not really fall to be construed by the court; and so the
\n       observations made by Dulat, J., that if the petitioners\tare
\n       not public servants within the meaning of s. 21<\/a> of the Penal
\n       Code they cannot be called public servants for the  purposes
\n       of  Act\t2 of 1947, is clearly orbiter.\tIf,  however,  this
\n       observation  was intended to be a decision on the point,\t it
\n       must, with respect, be held to be based on a misconstruction
\n       of s. 137(4)<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
       Mr.  Anand  has\talso fairly invited our\t attention  to\ttwo
\n       decisions  of this Court-Ram Krishan v. The State  of  Delhi<\/a>
\n       (2)  and C. A. Montorio v. The State of Ajmer(‘) -which\tare
\n       prima  facie against his contention.  In the first of  these
\n       two decisions the appellants had been charged under s.  120B<\/a>
\n       of  the Indian Penal Code for criminal conspiracy  to  cause
\n       offence\tof criminal misconduct punishable under s. 5(2)<\/a>\t of
\n       the  Act\t to be committed by Madan Lal as  also\tunder  that
\n       section\tread  with  s.\t116<\/a> of the  Code.   They  had  been
\n       convicted by the special judge on both the counts and  their
\n       conviction  had\tbeen upheld by the High\t Court.\t  In  their
\n       appeal  before  this Court one of the points raised  by\tthe
\n       appellants  was\tthat  Madan Lal was not\t a  public  servant
\n       within the meaning of the Act.  It appears that the  offence
\n       in question had been committed on
\n       (1) A. I. R. 1954 Punj 189.   (2) [1956] S.C.R. 182.
\n       (3) [1956] S.C.R. 682.\n<\/p>\n
       299<\/span><\/p>\n
       December 29, 1951, and the argument was that under s. 137(1)<\/a>
\n       and  (4)\t Madan Lal who was a railway servant could  not\t be
\n       held  to\t be  a\t-public servant under  s.  2<\/a>  of  the  Act.
\n       Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., who delivered the judgment of\tthe
\n       Court,  cited s. 137(1)<\/a> and added that sub-s. (4)  had  been
\n       omitted\tby the amendment of 1955.  Then the  learned  judge
\n       referred\t to  s.\t 2<\/a>. of the Act and concluded  thus:  ”\tThe
\n       result  is that before the amendment railway  servants  were
\n       treated\tas public servants only for the purpose of ch.\t IX
\n       of  the\tIndian\tPenal Code<\/a> but now as  the  result  of\tthe
\n       amendment  all railway servants have become public  servants
\n       not  only  for the limited purpose but generally\t under\tthe
\n       Prevention  of  Corruption  Act<\/a>.” With respect,\tit  may\t be
\n       pointed\tout,  that this observation seems to  give  to\tthe
\n       amended\t provisions   of  s.  137<\/a>  of  the   Railways\tAct
\n       retrospective  effect.  The question of the construction\t of
\n       the  relevant  sections does not appear to have\tbeen  fully
\n       argued before this Court and it has not been considered.\t It
\n       is nevertheless true that in respect of an offence committed
\n       in 1951 Madan Lal was hold to be a public servant under s. 2<\/a>
\n       of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
       In  the\tcase of Montorio (1) the main point  raised  before
\n       this  Court  was whether the accused was\t a  public  servant
\n       under  s.  21<\/a> of the Code and that was  considered  by  this
\n       Court; in dealing with that question this Court construed s.
\n       21<\/a>  and\theld that the appellant was an officer\twithin\tthe
\n       meaning\tof s. 21(9)<\/a> and therefore a public  servant  within
\n       the meaning of s. 21<\/a>.  Incidentally reference has been  made
\n       to  the\tearlier decision of this Court in the case  of\tRam
\n       Krishan (2) and it has been observed that the said  decision
\n       ” lays down that before the amendment of s. 137 of the Rail-
\n       ways  Act, by Act 17 of 1955, railway servants were  treated
\n       as  public servants only for the purposes of ch. IX  of\tthe
\n       Indian Penal Code<\/a> but in any event they were public servants
\n       under the Prevention of Corruption Act<\/a>.” With respect,  this
\n       latter  statement  does not appear to be borne  out  by\tthe
\n       judgment in the case of Ram Krishan (2).\n<\/p>\n
       (1) [1956] S.C.R. 682.\t    (2) [1956] S.C. R. 182
\n       300<\/span>
\n       Going back to s. 2<\/a> of the Act once more we must hold that in
\n       defining a public servant it enacts the same definitions\t as
\n       s. 21<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code and under this interpretation
\n       of  the\tsection,  the  appellants  undoubtedly\tare  public
\n       servants.   The\tresult is the courts below  were  right\t in
\n       holding\tthat the appellants could be properly  charged\tand
\n       tried for offences under s. 5(2)<\/a> read with s. 5(1)(c)<\/a> and s.
\n       5(1)(d)<\/a>\tof  the Act.  The validity of the charge  under\t s.
\n       120B<\/a> has not been and cannot be challenged.
\n       Mr.  Anand  for\tappellant  No. 1  and  Mr.  Chatterjee\tfor
\n       appellant No. 2 appealed to us to reduce the sentence passed
\n       against their clients.  It was urged in support of this plea
\n       that  though  the charge against them was in  respect  of  a
\n       large amount of Rs. 1,555 evidence had been adduced to prove
\n       misappropriation of Rs. 218 which is a much smaller  amount.
\n       We  do not think that in the circumstances of this case\tthe
\n       actual  amount  shown  to have been  misappropriated  has  a
\n       decisive\t or  even  a material bearing on  the  question\t of
\n       sentence.   The\tpositions  respectively\t occupied  by\tthe
\n       appellants,  the\t relations between them and  the  Class\t IV
\n       servants, the method adopted by the appellants in committing
\n       the  offence  and  the other  circumstances  have  all  been
\n       considered  by the courts below in passing concurrently\tthe
\n       respective  orders of sentence against the  appellants.\t In
\n       our  opinion there is no justification for interfering  with
\n       the said orders.\n<\/p>\n
       The  appeals  accordingly  fail\tand  are  dismissed.\tThe
\n       appellants to surrender to their bail bonds.
\n       Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
       301<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S. G Angoli vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh(And … on 14 May, 1957 PETITIONER: S. G ANGOLI Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH(and connected appeal) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/05\/1957 BENCH: ACT: Prevention of Corruption-Railway Servant under the Government-If a Public servant under the Act-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (11 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-249464","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS. G Angoli vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh(And ... on 14 May, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. G Angoli vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh(And ... on 14 May, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1957-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-23T20:25:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. G Angoli vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh(And … on 14 May, 1957\",\"datePublished\":\"1957-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-23T20:25:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957\"},\"wordCount\":3503,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957\",\"name\":\"S. G Angoli vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh(And ... on 14 May, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1957-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-23T20:25:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. G Angoli vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh(And … on 14 May, 1957\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S. G Angoli vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh(And ... on 14 May, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. G Angoli vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh(And ... on 14 May, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1957-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-23T20:25:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. G Angoli vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh(And … on 14 May, 1957","datePublished":"1957-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-23T20:25:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957"},"wordCount":3503,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957","name":"S. G Angoli vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh(And ... on 14 May, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1957-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-23T20:25:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-angoli-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradeshand-on-14-may-1957#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. G Angoli vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh(And … on 14 May, 1957"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249464","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=249464"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249464\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249464"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249464"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249464"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}