STATE (SPE HYDERABAD) Vs. AIR COMMODORE KAILASH CHAND

PETITIONER:
STATE (SPE HYDERABAD)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
AIR COMMODORE KAILASH CHAND

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/12/1979

BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
KAILASAM, P.S.
KOSHAL, A.D.

CITATION:
1980 AIR  522          1980 SCR  (2) 697
1980 SCC  (1) 667
CITATOR INFO :
O        1984 SC 684     (25)

ACT:
Prevention of  Corruption Act,  1947 (11  of 1947),  S.
5(2)-Air Force    Officer     retiring  from     service-Reemployed-
Services  transferred    to   Regular   Air   Force   Reserve
Prosecution of    officer under  the Act-Officer    if a  public
servant-Sanction whether necessary.

HEADNOTE:
The respondent  a    member    of  the     Indian     Air  Force,
retired from service on June 15, 1965 but was reemployed for
a period  of two  years with  effect from  June 16, 1965. On
September 7,  1966 the    respondent was    transferred  to     the
Regular Air  Force Reserve with effect from June 16, 1965 to
June 15,  1970 i.e.  for a period of five years. On March 13
1968 the reemployment given to the respondent ceased and his
services were  terminated with    effect from April 1, 1968. A
charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent for having
committed offences  under section  5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act,     1947, during  the period  March 29, 1965 to
March 16,  1967. The  respondent filed a petition before the
Special Judge  for dropping  the proceedings  against him on
the ground  that the  Judge could not take any cognizance of
the offences  in the  absence of  any valid  sanction of the
appointing authority  OF the respondent. The application was
rejected on  the ground     that as  the respondent  was not  a
Commissioned Officer  in the  Air Force at the time when the
cognizance was    taken, no  sanction  of     the  President     was
necessary.
The respondent  moved the High Court in revision, which
quashed the  proceedings, holding  that     as  the  respondent
continued to  be a  public servant  within  the     meaning  of
section 21  of the Indian Penal Code inasmuch as he remained
a member of Air Force Reserve, sanction was necessary before
prosecuting the respondent.
In the appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf
of the    appellant: (1)    that as     the respondent     had retired
from the  Indian Air Force and his employment was terminated
with effect  from April     1, 1968  he ceased  to be  a public
servant and  therefore no  sanction was     necessary, and     (2)
that reemployment  under the  provisions of  the Regular Air
Force Reserve  Act would  not amount to an employment in the
Regular Force  of the  Service and therefore even though the
respondent may    have been reemployed he could not be said to
hold the status of a public servant.
Dismissing the appeal,
^
HELD: 1.  The prosecution    must prove  that at the time
when cognizance     of the     offence was  taken  the  respondent
ceased to be a public servant. [700 C]
In the  instant case, the Special Judge took cognizance
on June     19. 1969 at a time when the respondent continued to
be a  public servant  having been  reemployed and though his
services were terminated only on April 1, 1968 he
698
continued to  be a  member of  the Auxiliary  Air Force upto
July 15,  1970, that  is a long time after cognizance of the
offence was taken. [700 D]
S. A.  Venkataraman v.  The State    [1958] S.C.R.  1037;
State of  West Bengal  etc. v.    Manmal Bhutoria     & Ors. Etc.
[1977] 3 S.C.R. 758 referred to.
2(i) The  Provisions of  the Auxiliary Air Force Act do
not expressly  contain the nature of the emoluments that the
respondent may    receive but the general tenor and setting of
the Act clearly show that a member of the Auxiliary Force is
as much     a public  servant as an acting member of the Indian
Air Force. [703 G]
(ii) Even    after the  respondent was transferred to the
Auxiliary Air  Force he     retained his  character as a public
servant because     he was     required to undergo training and to
be called up for service as and when required. [703 F]

JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE     JURISDICTION: Criminal     Appeal     No.
259 of 1973.
From the  Judgment and  order dated  27-4-1973  of     the
Andhra Pradesh    High Court  in Criminal     Revision  Case     No.
72/73.
R. B.  Datar, M.  N. Shroff  and R. N. Sachthey for the
Appellant.
P. Govindan Nair and A. Subba Rao for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI,     J.-This appeal     by certificate     is directed
against the  judgment dated  27th April     1973 of  the Andhra
Pradesh High  Court allowing  the revisional application and
quashing the  proceeding’s taken  against the respondent for
offences committed  under  s.  5(2)  of     the  Prevention  of
Corruption Act.
In the  view that    we take     in  the  case,     it  is     not
necessary to  give the    facts in detail. IL appears that the
respondent was    a member  of the  Indian  Air  Force  having
entered the  service on l 7th November 1941. He retired from
the service  on the  15th June 1965 but was reemployed for a
period of two years with effect from 16th June 1965. O.. 7th
September  1966,  the  respondent  was    transferred  to     the
Regular Air Force Reserve with effect from 16th July 1965 to
15th June  1970, i.e.,    for a period of five years. In Other
words, the  respondent    was  transferred  to  the  Auxiliary
Reserve Air  Force under  the provisions of the Reserved and
Auxiliary Air  Force Act 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to
as the    ’Act’) and rules thereunder. On 13th March 1968, the
reemployment given to the respondent ceased and his services
were terminated from 1st April 1968.
A chargesheet  was submitted against the respondent for
having committed offences under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act    during the  period 27th     March 1965  to 16th
March 1967. The
699
respondent  filed  a  Petition    before    the  Special  Judge,
Hyderabad for  dropping the  proceedings against  him on the
ground that  the Judge    could not take any cognizance of the
offences in  the  absence  of  any  valid  sanction  of     the
appointing authority  of the  respondent. The Special Judge,
however, rejected  this application  on the  20th of October
1972 on     the  ground  that  as    the  respondent     was  not  a
Commissioned officer  in the  Air Force at the time when the
cognizance was    taken, no  sanction  of     the  President     was
necessary. Thereafter,    the respondent    moved the High Court
in revision  and succeeded  before the High Court which held
that as     the respondent     continued to  be a  public  servant
within the  meaning of    s.  21    of  the     Indian     Penal    Code
inasmuch as  he remained  a member of the Air Force Reserve,
sanction was  essential before    prosecuting the     respondent.
The High  Court accordingly  accepted the  revision petition
and quashed  the  proceedings  against    the  respondent     but
granted a  certificate to  the appellant for leave to appeal
to this Court. Hence this appeal before us.
The only  point that  has been  canvassed before us was
whether     the  respondent  having  retired  from     the  active
service of  the Indian    Air Force  continued to     be a public
servant even  though he was transferred to Regular Air Force
Reserve. The  counsel for  the Union  submitted that  as the
respondent had    retired from  the Indian  Air Force  and his
reemployment was  terminated w.e.f. April 1, 1968, he ceased
to be  a public     servant and,  therefore,  no  sanction     was
necessary. We  have heard  counsel for    the parties and have
also perused  the judgment of the High Court and the Special
Judge. The  facts, mentioned above, are not disputed and two
questions fall for determination in this case.
In the first place, it has to be decided whether or not
the respondent    was a public servant during the period 27-3-
65 to  16-3-67. Secondly, what is the point of time when the
sanction was  necessary, viz.,    the time  when the  offences
were actually committed or when the court took cognizance of
the said  offences. We    will take up the second point first.
An identical  question came up for consideration before this
Court in  the case  of S. A. Venkataraman v. The State where
the Court, speaking through Imam J., observed as follows .
“In our  opinion, in  giving  effect  to  the  ordinary
meaning of     the words  used in  s. 6  of the  Act,     the
conclusion is  inevitable that  at the  time a court is
asked to take cognizance
700
not only  the offence  must have  been committed  by  a
public servant but the person accused is still a public
servant  removable     from  his  office  by    a  competent
authority before the provisions of s. 6 can apply.”
This case was followed by a recent decision of this Court in
the case  of State  of West Bengal Etc. v. Manmal Bhutoria &
Ors. Etc.  where the previous decision was followed. In view
of the    decisions of  this Court,  referred  to     above,     the
matter is  no longer  res integra  but is  concluded by     the
decisions of  this Court.  It fol  lows, therefore, that the
prosecution must  prove that at the time when the cognizance
of the    offence was  taken, the     respondent ceased  to be  a
public servant.     In the     instant  case,     the  Special  Judge
appears to  have taken cognizance on June 19, 1969 at a time
when the  respondent continued to be a public servant having
been reemployed     and as     referred to above his services were
terminated only     on 1-4-1968 but he continued to be a member
of the    Auxiliary Air  Force upto  15-6-70 that is to say, a
long time after the cognizance of the offence was taken. The
learned counsel     for the  Union, how  ever,  submitted    that
reemployment under  the provisions  of the Regular Air Force
Reserve Act would not amount to an employment in the Regular
Force  of   the     Service   and    therefore  even     though     the
respondent may have been reemployed, he could not be said to
hold the  status cf  a public  servant. In  this connection,
some of     the Rules  have been  placed before  us to show the
nature of  the employment  held by  the respondent after his
retirement. It is not disputed that even after reemployment,
the respondent    was transferred     to the     Air Force Auxiliary
Reserve and  continued to  be a     member of the Auxiliary Air
Force Reserve.    Relevant sections  of the Act are. extracted
below :-
“4.  Constitution    of  Regular  Air  Force     Reserve-The
Central Government may raise and maintain in the manner
hereafter in this Chapter provided an Air Force Reserve
to be  designated the  Regular Air     Force Reserve which
shall  consist   solely  of   persons  transferred      or
appointed to it under section 5.
5. Recruitment to the Regular Air Force Reserve-(1) The
competent authority  may, by  general or  special order
transfer to the regular Air Force Reserve-
(a)  any officer  or airman  of the  Air Force who
under the terms and conditions of his service
is liable to
701
serve in     any Air  Force Reserve     if and when
constituted;
(b)  any officer  or airman of the Air Force whose
com mission  or engagement  in the  Air Force
has been     terminated before  the commencement
of this    Act and     who under  the terms of his
commission or  engagement was liable to serve
in  any     Air  Force   Reserve  if  and    when
constituted;
(c)  any officer  or airman  who has served in the
Air Force and has retired therefrom;
and any  officer or  airman  so  transferred  shall  be
deemed to be a member of the said Reserve.
(2)  The  competent    authority   may,   in    such
circumstances and  subject to such conditions
as  may    be  prescribed,     by  special  order,
appoint to  the Regular Air Force Reserve any
member of  the Air  Defence  Reserve  or     the
Auxiliary Air  Force  raised  and  maintained
under this  Act, and where any such member is
so appointed,  he shall    cease to be a member
of the  Air Defence  Reserve or the Auxiliary
Air Force,  as the  case may be, and shall as
from the     date of  such appointment be deemed
to be  a member    of  the     Regular  Air  Force
Reserve.
(3)    ..        ..        ..        ..
6. Classes of persons in the Regular Air Force Reserve-
Members of     the Regular  Air  Force  Reserve  shall  be
divided into the following classes, namely:-
(a) general duties officers, and
(b) ground duties officers, and
(c) airmen,
and every    officer shall  be entitled  on    transfer  or
appointment to  the Reserve  to hold  the same  rank as
that which     he-last held  in the  Air Force  or the Air
Defence Reserve or the Auxiliary Air Force, as the case
may be, before such transfer or appointment.
7. Period    of service-(1)    Every member  of the Regular
Air Force    Reserve shall  he liable  to  serve  in     the
Reserve-
(a)  if he  is transferred  to the  Reserve  under
sub- section (1) of section 5, for the period
of his Re serve liability; and
702
(b)  if he  is appointed to the Reserve under sub-
section (2)  of section    S, for the remainder
of the  period for  which he  was  liable  to
serve in     the  Air  Defence  Reserve  or     the
Auxiliary Air Force, as the case may be:
Provided that     the competent authority may require
any such  member to  serve     in  the  Reserve  for    such
further  period   or  periods   not  exceeding  in     the
aggregate five years as it may think fit.
x         x        x       x          x
9. Constitution  of  Air  Defence    Reserve-The  Central
Government may  raise and    maintain in  the manner here
after in  this Chapter provided an Air Force Reserve to
be designated  the     Air  Defence  Reserve    which  shall
consist of     persons  deemed  under     the  provisions  of
section 16 to be enrolled therein.
10. Classes  of persons  in the  Air  Defence  Reserve-
Members of     the Air  Defence Reserve  shall be  divided
into the following classes, namely:-
(a) general duties officers;
(b) ground duties officers; and
(c) airmen.
x         x        x       x          x
12. Liability  to be called up for inquiry-Every person
to whom  the provisions  of section  11 are  applicable
shall be  liable to  be called  up     for  inquiry  under
section 13-
(a)  if he belongs to any of the classes specified
in clauses  (a) to  (f) of sub-section (1) of
section    11,   until  he     has  completed     his
thirty-seventh year, and
(b)  if he belongs to any of the classes specified
in clauses  (g) and  (h)     of  the  said    sub-
section, until  he has completed his fiftieth
year.
x         x        x       x          x
18. Constitution of Auxiliary Air Force-(1) The Central
Government     may   raise  and  maintain  in     the  manner
hereafter in  this Chapter     provided an Air Force to be
designated the Auxiliary Air Force.
(2) The  Central Government  may  constitute    such
number of    squadrons and  units of     the  Auxiliary     Air
Force as  it thinks fit and may disband or reconstitute
any squadron or unit.
703
19. Classes  of persons  in the  Auxiliary     Air  Force-
Members of     the Auxiliary    Air Force  shall be  divided
into the following classes, namely:
(a) general duties officers;
(b) ground duties officers; and
(c) airmen.
20. Officers  of the  Auxiliary Air Force-The President
may grant    to such person as he thinks fit a commission
as an  officer in    the Auxiliary  Air  Force  with     the
designation  of  rank  corresponding  to  that  of     any
commissioned officer in the Air Force.
..            ..           ..         ..
22. Periods of service-Every officer and every enrolled
person shall,  subject to any rules that may be made in
this behalf under this Act, be required to serve in the
Auxiliary Air Force for a period of five years from the
date of  his appointment  or enrollment  but may, after
the completion  of his  period of service, volunteer to
serve therein for further periods each of not more than
five years’ duration.
23. Termination  of Service-The  service of any officer
or enrolled  person in  the Auxiliary Air Force may, at
any  time    before    the  completion     of  his  period  of
service, be terminated by such authority and under such
conditions as may be prescribed.”
(Emphasis ours)
A perusal    of the    provisions of  these sections  would
clearly reveal    that once  the respondent was transferred to
the Auxiliary  Air Force  he retained  his  character  as  a
public servant    because he  was required to undergo training
and to    be called up for service as and when required. It is
true that  these provisions  do not  expressly    contain     the
nature of the emoluments that the respondent may receive but
the general tenor and setting of the Act clearly show that a
member of the Auxiliary Force is as much a public servant as
an acting  member of  the Indian Air Force. This is the view
which the  High Court  appears to  have taken  and  we    find
ourselves in  complete agreement  with the  same. It  is not
disputed in  this case    that no     sanction was taken from the
appointing authority  before prosecuting the respondent. For
these reasons, therefore, we do not find any error of law in
the judgment  of the  High Court and the appeal fails and is
accordingly dismissed
N.V.K.           Appeal dismissed.
704

Leave a Reply