9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrived at Bombay to take delivery of the car on March 14, 1965 and they stayed there till March 13. 1965. Mr. Rae, however, left on the morning of March 13, 1965 directing the respondent to obtain delivery of the Fiat Car on March 14, 1965 and then proceed to Indore. Ultimately the car was brought to Bhopal on March 16, 1965 at about 2-30 P.M. On March 23, 1965 the respondent submitted his T.A. bill Ext. P-21 showing his departure from Bombay on March 16, 1965 by car at 2-00 P.M. and arrival at Bhopal on March 17, 1965 at 6-30 P.M. and claimed daily allowance at the rate of Rs. 12/- per day for halt at Bombay. The respondent accordingly received the full amount of the T.A. Bill on April 3, 1965. The allegation against the respondent was that he had prepared a false T.A. Bill and had cheated the Government Company and was guilty of serious criminal misconduct as envisaged by the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge, Indore, accepted the prosecution case and convicted the respondent as indicated above. The respondent then filed an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which allowed appeal, mainly on the ground that as the respondent was not a public serva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consisted only of eleven clauses and an employee under the Corporation or a Government Company did not fall within the purview of any of the clauses of s. 21 of the Penal Code. Thus when the Legislature incorporated the provisions of s. 21 of the Penal Code in the Act in the year 1947, cl. 12 was not there at all on the statute book of the Penal Code. The High Court took the view that as the Act had incorporated the definition of the Penal Code prior to its amendment, therefore, it became an integral and independent part of the Act and would remain unaffected by any repeal or change in the previous Act, namely the Penal Code. It appears, however, that by virtue of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, twelfth clause was inserted in s. 21 of the Penal Code, which runs as follows: "Twelfth.-Every officer in the service or pay of a local authority or of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central, Provincial or State Act or of a Government company as define in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956." This Act also amended certain provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in enlarging the concept of criminal misconduct but it did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier Act has, in general, no effect upon the construction or effect of the Act in which its provisions have been incorporated. The effect of incorporation is stated by Brett, L.J., in Clarke v. Bradiaugh: "Where a statute is incorporated, by reference into a Second statute the repeal of the first statute by a third does not affect the second." In the circumstances, therefore, the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act of 1900 has no effect on the continued operation of the Pre-emption Act and the expression 'agricultural land' in the later Act has to be read as if the definition in the Alienation of Land Act had been bodily transposed into it." The doctrine of incorporation by reference to earlier legislation has been very aptly described by Lord Esher, M. R., in In re Wood's Estate, Ex parte Her Majesty's Commissioners of Works and Building(3) where he observed as follows: "If a subsequent Act brings into itself by reference some of the clauses of a former Act, the legal effect of that, as has often been held, is to write those sections into the new Act just as if they had been actually written in it with the pen, or printed in it, and, the moment you have those clauses i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t may not be possible to hold that the Act and the Penal Code were statutes in pari materia. It would appear that the Act is a completely self contained statute with its own provisions and has created a specific offence of criminal misconduct which is quite different from the offence of bribery as defined in the Penal Code. Both these statutes have different objects and create offences with separate ingredients. No authority has been cited before us in support of the proposition that the Act, namely, the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Penal Code are statutes in pari materia so as to form one system. In the State of Madras v. Vaidyanath Aiyar, (1) this Court while construing the meaning of the phrase 'it shall be presumed' appearing in s. 4 of the Act utilised the construction placed on the phrase shall presume' in the Evidence Act by holding that the Evidence Act was a statute in pari materia with the Prevention of Corruption Act. There can be no doubt that the Evidence Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act form part of one system, because the rules of the Evidence Act, with minor exceptions, apply to trials of offences created under the Act. This principle, however, ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants was at the material time owned by the Government of India and managed and run by it, and so if the status of the appellants had to be judged at the material date solely by reference to s.21 of the Code there would be no difficulty in holding that they are public servants as defined by the said section." Even while discussing the exact ambit and scope of the Prevention of Corruption Act, this Court observed in M. Narayanan Nambiar v. Slate of Kerala(1) as follows: "The preamble indicates that the Act was passed as it was expedient to make more effective provision for the prevention of bribery and corruption. The long title as well as the preamble indicate that the Act was passed to put down the said social evil i.e. bribery and corruption by public servant....... It also aims to protect honest public servants from harassment by prescribing that the investigation against them could be made only by police officials of particular status and by making the sanction of the Government or other appropriate officer a pre-condition for their prosecution. As it is a socially useful measure conceived in public interest, it should be liberally construed so as to bring about the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and are to tally unaffected by any repeal or amendment in the previous Act. This principle, however, will not apply in the following cases: (a) where the subsequent Act and the previous Act are supplemental to each other; (b) where the two Acts are in pari materia; (c) where the amendment in the previous Act, if not imported into the subsequent Act also, would render the subsequent Act wholly unworkable and ineffectual; and (d) where the amendment of the previous Act, either expressly or by necessary intendment, applies the said provisions to the subsequent Act. The Additional Solicitor General vehemently contended that if the enlarged definition by the insertion of clause 12 in s. 21 of the Penal Code is not imported into s. 21 of the Act, then the Act would become wholly unworkable. For instance, if two persons are serving under a Government company and have committed an offence of accepting illegal gratification, and if one is prosecuted under s. 161 of the Penal Code and the other under the Act, it is obvious that the prosecution against the employee under the Penal Code would succeed on proof of facts, whereas the employee of the same company who is prosecuted under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
