Dismissed¶107

State(Spe Hyderabad) v. Air Commodore Kailash Chand

Supreme Court21 Dec 19791979 INSC 275 · [1980] 2 S.C.R. 6971979 INSC 275

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

sanction; cognizance; public servant; Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 s.5(2); s.6 sanction timing; s.21 Indian Penal Code; Reserve and Auxiliary Air Force Act 1952; Regular Air Force Reserve; Auxiliary Air Force; retired re-employed Air Force officer; Special Judge Hyderabad; Andhra Pradesh High Court Criminal Revision Case 72/73; Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 1973; certificate appeal; S. A. Venkataraman; State of West Bengal v. Manmal Bhutoria; appeal dismissed; Fazal Ali J.

What did the court decide?

Appeal of the State dismissed; the High Court's quashing of the criminal proceedings against the respondent stands, there being no error of law in it. ¶107

State(Spe Hyderabad) versus Air Commodore Kailash Chand — Corruption | Supreme Court (1980)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal of the State dismissed; the High Court's quashing of the criminal proceedings against the respondent stands, there being no error of law in it.

¶107

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent, who retired from the Indian Air Force on 15 June 1965, was reemployed and thereafter transferred to the Regular (Auxiliary) Air Force Reserve under the Reserve and Auxiliary Air Force Act 1952, was a public servant during the period 27-3-1965 to 16-3-1967. +1 more

¶54

Court's answer

Once transferred to the Auxiliary Air Force, the respondent 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.

¶105

Ratio / Principle

Following S. A. Venkataraman v. The State and State of West Bengal v. Manmal Bhutoria & Ors., the question being no longer res integra, the prosecution must prove that the respondent had ceased to be a public servant at the time cognizance of the offence was taken.

¶69

Key takeaways

The Special Judge took cognizance on June 19, 1969, when the respondent, whose services were terminated only on 1-4-1968, continued to be a member of the Auxiliary Air Force upto 15-6-1970; he had therefore not ceased to be a public servant when cognizance was taken.ratio¶69
Although the Act's provisions do not expressly contain the nature of the emoluments the respondent may receive, 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.ratio¶105

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, s. 5(2) - sanction for prosecution of a retired, re-employed Air Force officer transferred to the Regular (Auxiliary) Air Force Reserve under the Reserve and Auxiliary Air Force Act 1952 - whether the officer remained a public servant and when sanction was necessary. The respondent entered the Indian Air Force on 17 November 1941, retired on 15 June 1965 but was reemployed for two years from 16 June 1965; on 7 September 1966 he was transferred to the Regular Air Force Reserve for 16 June 1965 to 15 June 1970; his reemployment ceased on 13 March 1968 and his services were terminated from 1 April 1968. Charged for offences under s. 5(2) during 27 March 1965 to 16 March 1967, his plea before the Special Judge, Hyderabad that proceedings be dropped for want of sanction was rejected (20 October 1972) on the ground that he was not a Commissioned Officer at the time cognizance was taken. The Andhra Pradesh High Court (Criminal Revision Case No. 72/73, judgment dated 27-4-1973) quashed the proceedings, holding he remained a public servant within s. 21 IPC as a member of the Air Force Reserve and sanction was essential. Dismissing the State's certificated appeal, the Supreme Court (Murtaza Fazal Ali, P. S. Kailasam and A. D. Koshal, JJ.; judgment by Fazal Ali, J.) held: (1) the prosecution must prove that the accused ceased to be a public servant at the time cognizance was taken; cognizance here was taken on June 19, 1969, when the respondent, though terminated from 1-4-1968, continued as a member of the Auxiliary Air Force upto 15-6-1970 (S. A. Venkataraman v. The State, [1958] S.C.R. 1037, and State of West Bengal v. Manmal Bhutoria & Ors., [1977] 3 S.C.R. 758, followed); (2) the provisions and general tenor of the 1952 Act show that a member of the Auxiliary Air Force is as much a public servant as an acting member of the Indian Air Force, the respondent retaining that character through liability to training and call-up; and it was undisputed that no sanction was taken from the appointing authority before prosecution. Appeal dismissed.

697

" I

STATE (SPE HYDERABAD)

¶6

¶7

¶8

AIR COMMODORE KAILASH CHAND

¶9

December 21, 1979

¶10

1s. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. s. KAILASAM AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.J

¶11

¶12

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (11 of 1947), S. 5(2)-Air Force Officer retiring fron1 servicc-Rec1nployed-Services transferred to Regular Air Fore~ _Reserve:Prosecution of officer under the Act-Officer if a public servantSanction whether neces!>ary.

¶13

1'he respondent "' member of the Indian Air Forc'e, retired from senrice on June 15, 1965 but was reemployed for a period of two ye-ars with effa::t from June 16, 1965. On September 7, 1966 th'e 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 re'employment 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 procceding..11· .against him on the ground that the Judge could not take any cogniZE•nce of the offences in the absence of any valid sanction of the appointing authority of the respond'ent. The application was rejected on the ground that as the respo~dent was not a Commissioned Officer in the Air Force at the time wh'en the cognizance \·as taken, no sanction of the President was necessary.

•

The respondent moved the High Court in revision, which quashed th'e proceedings, holding that as the respondent continued to be a public st:rvant 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.

¶19

•

¶20

In the appeal to thi~ 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 Regula.r 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 h'e could not be said to hold the status of a public servant.

¶21

¶22

¶23

Dismissing the appeal,

¶24

HELD : 1. The prosecution must prove that at the time when cognizanc'o 'Of the offenct~ was takrn the respondent ceased to be a public servant. [700 C]

¶25

In the instant cMe, th'e Specfol Judge took cognizance on June 19, 1969 at a time when the respondent continued to be a public servant having b'een re" employed and though his services were terminated only on April 1, 1968 he

¶26

¶27

Ll98J] 2 s.c.R.

¶28

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

698

A oontinued to be a member of the Auxiliary Air Force upto June 15, 1970, that is a long time after cognizaDCe of the offence was taken. [700 DJ S. A. Venkataraman v. 1'hc State [1958] S.C.R. 1037; State of West Bengal etc. v. Manrr1al Bhutoril1 c.ll Ors. Etc. [1977] 3 S.C.R. 758 referred to.

¶33

2(i) The Provisions of the Auxiliary A..ir :force Act do not 'expressly con~ tain the nature of the emoluments that the respondent may receive but the B general tenor and setting of th'e Act clearly show that a member of the Auxiliary Force is as much ai public serv,ant as an acting member of the Indian Air Force. [703 GJ

¶34

(ii) Even after the respondent was transferred to the Auxiliary 1~.ir Force he retained his character as a public servant because he vtas required to undergo training and to be called up for service as and when required. [703 F]

¶35

¶36

-y

¶37

C CRLMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 1973.

¶38

Frcm the Judgment and Order dated 27-4-1973 of the Andhra Pradesh Hifh Court in Criminal Revision Case NL}. 72/73.

¶39

R. B. Datar, M. N. Shroff and R. N. Sachthey fer the Appellant.

¶40

¶41

P. Govindan Nair and A. Subba Rao for the Respondent.

¶42

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶43

FAZAL ALI, J.-This appeal by certificate is directed against the. judgment dated 27th April 1973 ol the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the revisional application and quashing the proceedings taken E against the respondent for offences committed under s. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶44

In the view that we take in the case, it is not necessary to give the facts in detail. It appears that the respondent was a member of the Indian Air Force having entered the service on 17th November F 1941. He retired from the service on the 15th lune 1965 but was reemployed for a period of two years with effect from 16th June 1965. On 7th September 1966, the respondent was transferred to the Regular Air Force Reserve with effect from 16th June 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 G under the provisions of the Reserve 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.

¶45

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

•

•

STATE v. KAILASH CHAND (Fazal Ali, !.) 699

¶50

•

¶51

•

¶52

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 gronnd that as the respondent was not a Commissioned oillcer 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 pnblic 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.

¶53

The only point that has been canvassed before us wa~ 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 persued the judgment of the High C:iurt and the Special Judge. The facts, mentioned above, are not disputed and two questions fall for determination in this case.

¶54

In the first place, it has to be decided whether or not the respondent was a public servant during the period 2 7-3-65 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 offence!. We will take up the second point first. An identical question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of S. A. Venkazaraman v. The State(¹ ) where the Court, speaking through Imam J., observed as follows :

¶55

"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

(1) [1958] S.C.R. 1037.

¶65

(1930] 2 s.c.R ..

¶66

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶67

700

¶68

A 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."

¶69

This case was followed by a recent decision of this Court in the B 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 abo'>le, the matter is no longer res integm but is concluded by the decisions of this Court. Tt follows, therefore, that the prosecution must prove that at the time when the cognizance of the offence was taken, the respondent ceased c 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 Nr Force upto 15-6-70 that is to say, a long time after the cognizance D of the offence was taken. The learned counsel for the Union, however, submitted that reemployment under the provisions <;f the Regular Air Force Reserve Act wouk! 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 o[ a public servant. In this cormection, wmc of the Rules E have been placed before us to show the nature of the employment held by th~ 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 arEO extracted below :-F "4. Constiution 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 cQilsist solely of persons transferred or appointed to it under G section 5. 5. Recrnitment to the Regular Air Force Reserve--(!) 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 B terms and conditions of his service is liable to

• / 1

)

•

(1) [1977] 3 S.C.R. 758.

•

•

STATE v. KAILASH CHAND (Fazul Ali, !.) 701 serve in any Air Force Reserve if and when constituted; (b) any officer or airman of the Air Force whose comntission 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 :rnd subject to such conditions a-. may be presc,ibed, 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 iifom 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, a.nd (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 be liable to serve in the Reserve-(a) if he is transferred to the Reserve under subsection (1) of section 5, for the period of his Reserve liability; and

[1980] 2 5.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶88

702

¶89

A B	(b)ifheisappointed to the Reserve under sub-section (2)of section5,for the remainder of the period for which hewasliable to serve in the Air Defence Reserve or the Auxiliary Air Force,asthe case may be : Provided that the competent authority may require any such membertoserve in the Reserve for such further period or periods not exceedinginthe aggregatefiveyearsas itmaythinkfit.
	x x x x x x
	9.Constitution of Air DefenceReserve-TheCentral
c	G-Overnmentmay raise and maintain in the manner here- after in this Chapter providedanAir 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.
fl	10.C'lassesof 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.
E F	x x x x x x 12. Liability to be called up forinquiry-Everypersonto whomthe provisions of section11are applicable shall be liable to be called up for inquiry under section13- ( a)ifhe belongs to any of the classes specified in clauses (a) to (f)of sub-section(1)of section 1 Luntil he hasc0111pletedhis 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.
G	x x x x x x 18. Constitution of Auxiliary AirForce-(1)The Central Government may raise and maintain in the manner hereafter inthis Chapter provided an Air Force to be designated the AuxiliaryAirForce.
H	_(2)_The Central Government may constitute ~uch number of squadrons andunits of the Auxiliary Air Forceas_it_thinksfitand may disband or reconstitute any squadron or unit.

,- '

•

)

STATE v. KAILASH CHAND (Fazal Ali, J.) 703

•

•

19. Classes ot persons in the Auxiliary Air Force-Members of the Auxiliary Air Force shall be divided into the following classes, namely :

¶98

(a) general duties officers;

¶99

¶100

(b) ground duties officers; and

¶101

¶102

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.

¶103

Periods of service-Every ollicer 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 enrolment 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.

¶104

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 avthorily and under such conditions as may he prescribed." (Emphasis ours)

¶105

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. TI1is 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 Jaw in the judgment of the High Court and the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

N.V.K.

Appeal dismissed.