# ·J •• M. A. KOCHU DEVASSY ETC v. STATE OF KERALA

- **Citation:** [1979] 1 S.C.R. 797
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-09-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeals Nos. 178 and 248 of 1977
- **Bench:** Jaswant Singh, P. s. KAILASAM, A. D. KosHAL
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/j-m-a-kochu-devassy-etc-v-state-of-kerala-7537
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A
Indian Penal Code-Sec. 21-Public Servant-Kerala Crin1inal Law An1e11dB
ment Act, 1962-Secs. 2, 3-Prevention of Corruption Acl, 1947..:..Scc. 5Efject qf enlargement of definition of a public servant by Kerala anlendment.
The appellants in the above appeal were tried and convicted in respect of
the ,offences inter·alia under section 408, 465, 477 and 477A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 read with s. :5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
by a special judge.
Both the appellants were members of a
registered
co--
operative society. The conviction of the appellants, was
confirmed
by the
High Court. Sec. 21 of the Indian Penal Code defines a public servant
"Members of the Executive
Committee or
servants of a
cooperative
society are not embraced by the categories mentioned in sec. 21" Chapter 9
c
of the Penal Code deals with offences by or relating to public servant. Sec. 2
of ·the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 adopts definition of public servant
from Sec. 21 of the Penal Code. By the 1952 amendment of the Crimirial
Procedure
Code the provisions of appoiritment of a Special Judge to try the
offences have been provided. The said 1955 amendment adds certain more
offences \vhich are to be tried by a special judge. The Kerala Criminal Law
Ainendment Act. 1962 a-mended Sec. 161 of the Penal Code by adding an
explanation thereto. It provides that for the purpose of the said section and
certairl other sections a public servant shall denote, besides those who are
public servants within the meaning of that section, 1nembers of the Board of
Directors or the Executive or Managing Committee and other officer or servant
of a Co-operative Society registered or deemed to be registered under the law
relating
to co-operative societies for the "time being in force. Sec. 3 of the
Keralai Act provides that for the purpose of the Preventive of Corruption Act,
1947, public servant shall have the meaning assigned to it under the explanation
to sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code as amended by the Kerala Criminal
I.aw Amendment Act, 1962.
( 1) The appellants contended that sec. 2 of the Kerala Act brought n1embers
of the exet.'Utive committee or the servants of a registered co-operative society
within the ambit of the expression "public servant" only for the purpose of
Sections 161 to 165A of the Penad. Code and for no other purpose. Therefore,
the use of the enlarged definition cannot be niade for the purpose of 1947
Act.
(2) If the intention of the legislature was to enlarge the definition for all
purposes, whatever, it would have amended section 21 of the Indian Pen::i.l Code
itself.
Dismissing the appeals the Court,
D
E
F
G
HEID: (1) The terms of sec. 2 of the 1947 Act as substituted by sec. 3
H
.of .the Kerala Act are absolutely clear and unambiguous and when they lay
down that expression public servant shall have a particular meaning for . \he
A
B
c
D
E
798
SUn.JlME COURT llEPORTS
[1979] l
~.c.ll.
purpose of the Act, that meaning must be given to the expression wherever
it occurs in the Act. "For the purpose of the Act .. surely means for tho purpose
of all and not only some of the provisions of the Act. [803El
(2) The Kerala Act carried out amendment of the 1947 Act insofar as
the State of Kera!& was concerned. The 1947 Act deals not only with offences
under sec. 161 to 165A of the Penal Code but also and mainly with those
falling under various clauses of sub-section 1 to 5 of the 1947 Act. No reason·
able line of distinction between the. offences under sec. 161 to 165A Of the
Code on the one hand and those punishable under sec. 5 of the 1947 Act on
the other appears feasible for the purpose of conferment of exclusive jurisdiction
on special judges to try them.
From this point of view also interpretation
canvassed on behalf of the appellants is untenable. [804C-El
(3) The arguments that the legislature would have incorporated the 34'1.i~
tional definition under sec. 21 if it desired to extend the scope for all purposes
is without substance.

## Text

., .
)
j
·J
••
M. A. KOCHU DEVASSY ETC.
v.
STATE OF KERALA
September 15, 1978
797
[JASWANT SINGH, P. s. KAILASAM AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.J
A
Indian Penal Code-Sec. 21-Public Servant-Kerala Crin1inal Law An1e11dB
ment Act, 1962-Secs. 2, 3-Prevention of Corruption Acl, 1947..:..Scc. 5Efject qf enlargement of definition of a public servant by Kerala anlendment.
The appellants in the above appeal were tried and convicted in respect of
the ,offences inter·alia under section 408, 465, 477 and 477A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 read with s. :5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
by a special judge.
Both the appellants were members of a
registered
co--
operative society. The conviction of the appellants, was
confirmed
by the
High Court. Sec. 21 of the Indian Penal Code defines a public servant
"Members of the Executive
Committee or
servants of a
cooperative
society are not embraced by the categories mentioned in sec. 21" Chapter 9
c
of the Penal Code deals with offences by or relating to public servant. Sec. 2
of ·the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 adopts definition of public servant
from Sec. 21 of the Penal Code. By the 1952 amendment of the Crimirial
Procedure
Code the provisions of appoiritment of a Special Judge to try the
offences have been provided. The said 1955 amendment adds certain more
offences \vhich are to be tried by a special judge. The Kerala Criminal Law
Ainendment Act. 1962 a-mended Sec. 161 of the Penal Code by adding an
explanation thereto. It provides that for the purpose of the said section and
certairl other sections a public servant shall denote, besides those who are
public servants within the meaning of that section, 1nembers of the Board of
Directors or the Executive or Managing Committee and other officer or servant
of a Co-operative Society registered or deemed to be registered under the law
relating
to co-operative societies for the "time being in force. Sec. 3 of the
Keralai Act provides that for the purpose of the Preventive of Corruption Act,
1947, public servant shall have the meaning assigned to it under the explanation
to sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code as amended by the Kerala Criminal
I.aw Amendment Act, 1962.
( 1) The appellants contended that sec. 2 of the Kerala Act brought n1embers
of the exet.'Utive committee or the servants of a registered co-operative society
within the ambit of the expression "public servant" only for the purpose of
Sections 161 to 165A of the Penad. Code and for no other purpose. Therefore,
the use of the enlarged definition cannot be niade for the purpose of 1947
Act.
(2) If the intention of the legislature was to enlarge the definition for all
purposes, whatever, it would have amended section 21 of the Indian Pen::i.l Code
itself.
Dismissing the appeals the Court,
D
E
F
G
HEID: (1) The terms of sec. 2 of the 1947 Act as substituted by sec. 3
H
.of .the Kerala Act are absolutely clear and unambiguous and when they lay
down that expression public servant shall have a particular meaning for . \he
A
B
c
D
E
798
SUn.JlME COURT llEPORTS
[1979] l
~.c.ll.
purpose of the Act, that meaning must be given to the expression wherever
it occurs in the Act. "For the purpose of the Act .. surely means for tho purpose
of all and not only some of the provisions of the Act. [803El
(2) The Kerala Act carried out amendment of the 1947 Act insofar as
the State of Kera!& was concerned. The 1947 Act deals not only with offences
under sec. 161 to 165A of the Penal Code but also and mainly with those
falling under various clauses of sub-section 1 to 5 of the 1947 Act. No reason·
able line of distinction between the. offences under sec. 161 to 165A Of the
Code on the one hand and those punishable under sec. 5 of the 1947 Act on
the other appears feasible for the purpose of conferment of exclusive jurisdiction
on special judges to try them.
From this point of view also interpretation
canvassed on behalf of the appellants is untenable. [804C-El
(3) The arguments that the legislature would have incorporated the 34'1.i~
tional definition under sec. 21 if it desired to extend the scope for all purposes
is without substance. If the definition had been enlarged by amendment of
sec. 21 it would have made the new categories of persons brought by it within
the ambit of the expression "public servant" liable to punishment not only
for offences under sec. 161 to 165A of the Code but also for numerous other
offences specified in the code relating to public servants as also to offences so
related and created by other Acts wherein the definition of public servant
occurring in sec. 21 of the Code has been adopted. [804F-Hl
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. 178
and 248 of 1977.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
25-1-77, 4-3-77 of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Misc. Petition
No. 862/76 and Criminal Appeal No. 416/75.
T. C. Raghavan (In Crl. A. 178/77) and P. K. Pillai for the Appellant.
K. T. Narindranath (In Cr!. A. 178/77) and K. R. Nambiar for
(
I
. '
F
the Respondent.
~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KOSHAL, J.-By this judgment we shall
dispose
of
Criminal
Appeals Nos. 178 and 248 of 1977, both of which were admitted to a
G
hearing by special leave and in each one of which the sole point for
determination is whether a member of an executive committee or a
servant of a registered co-operative society is a public servant for thll
purpose of clause ( c) of sub-section ( 1) of section 5 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act (Central Act No. 2 of 1947, hereinafter referred
under the Criminal Law Amendment Act (Central Act No. 46 of
H
to as the 1947 Act) and whether, therefore, a Special Judge appointed
1952, hereinafter called the 1952 Act) has jurisdiction to try him for
an offence under that clause.
\ .
>-
I
I
•
'
- '
I
M.A. KOCHU DEVASSY v. KERALA (Koshal, !.)
799
2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1977 is M.A.
A
Kochu Devassy who was sent up, alongwith 11 others, for trial in respect of offences under sections 120-B, 408, 465, 467, 477 and 477-A
of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter described as the Code)
and
clause (c) of sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of section 5
of the 194 7 Act to the Special Judge, Trichur by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Trichur. The allegations
against the accused were that while being members of the Board of
Directors or the servants of Cooperative Society No. R-192, Chalakudy
(hereinafter called the Society), they, on the 18th of May
1972,
entered into a conspiracy to misappropriate the funds of the Society,
that in pursuance of that conspiracy they misappropriated a sum of
Rs. 1900/- on the same date and that they prepared false records in
order to conceal the misappropriation. Before the trial commenced,
however, a petition was made on behalf of the accused to the High
Court of Kerala praying that the charge be quashed. That petition
came up for hearing before Khalid, J., who doubted the correctness of
the dictum of a Division Bench of that Court in Sahadevan v. State of
Kerala(1) to the effect that a Special Judge has jurisdiction to try all
cases against employees of co-operative societies under all or any of
the provisions of section 5 of the 194 7 Act.
He adverted to various
provisions of that Act and the Kerala Criminal Law Amendment Act
(Kerala Act 27 of 1962 and hereinafter referred to as the Kerala Act)
and thought that an important aspect of the amendment promulgated
by the Kerala Act was not brought to tbe notice, of the Division Bench
and therefore referred the matter to a larger Bench by an order dated
the 7th of December 1976.
The petition then came up for final
hearing before a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, which has, by
B
1 the impugned judgment, held that the dictum of the Division Bench
j
mentioned above was correct, that a member of the executive committee or a servant of a registered co-operative society was a public
servant for the purposes of the 194 7 Act as a whole in so far as the
State of Kerala was concerned and that, therefore, such a member or
servant could be tried by a Special Judge. It is by that judgment that
the appellant feels aggrieYed.
3. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1977 is one C.A.
Thomas who was convicted by the Special Judge, Trichur, for offences
under ciause (c) of sub-section (1) read with seub-section (2} of
section 5 of the 194 7 Act and section 408 of the Code and was
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a year and a fine of Rs. 5000/-
on the first count, the sentence in default of payment of fine
being
rigorous imprisonment for six months. No sentence was awarded for
(I) (1976) KeraJa Law Tim<s 134.
17-549 SCI/78
c
D
E
F
G
B
A
B
c
D
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] l s.c.R.
the offence under section 408 of the Code.
The allegations on the
basis of which he was prosecuted and which were found proved against
him were that while being employed as a store-keeper at the firewood
depot at Puokunnam owned by the Wholesale Co-operative Stores Ltd.
Trichur, he misappropriated profits accruing to his employers by abusing his official position.
He filed an appeal to the High Court of
Kerala which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the 4th of
March 1977 through the judgment impugned before us.
The pleas
raised before the High Court on his behalf included one that the Special
Judge had no jurisdiction to try him inasmuch as he was not a public
servant for the purposes of the 1947 Act.
The plea was rejected by
the High Court in view of the dictum of the Full Bench which is
challenged before us in Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1977.
4. At this stage we may usefully refer to various provisions of the
Code, the 1947 Act, the 1952 Act, the Kerala Act and the Criminal
Law Amendment Act (Central Act No. 50 of 1955 and hereinafter
called the 1955 Act). Section 21 of the Code defines what is a "public
servant" .. In 12 clauses it lists various categories of persons who fall
within the definition. Members of the executive committee or servants
of a co-operative society are not embraced by any of those categories.
Chapter IX of the Code headed "Of Offences by or relating to Public
Servants" consists of sections 161 to 171. Section
161 states the
E
conditions on the fulfilment of which a public servant would be guilty
of bribery and lays down the punishment therefor.
F
G
Section 2 of the 194 7 Act as originally enacted was to the following
effect :
'2. For the purposes of this Act, "public servant" mean•
a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal
Code.'
Sub-section (1) of section 5 of the 194 7 Act states when a public
servant can be said to commit the. offence of criminal misconduct. It
has five clauses of which the first three run as follows :
"(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept
or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or
for any other person, any gratification (other than
legal remuneration) as a motive or reward such as is
mentioned in section 161 of the Indian Penal Code,
or
JI
"(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept
or attempts to obtain for hintsel! or for any other
person, any valuable thing without consideration or
I
•
\.-
M.A. KOCHU DEVASSY v. KERALA (Koshal, J.)
801
for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate,
from any person whom he knows to have been, or to
be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding
or business transacted or about to be transacted by
him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he
is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows
to be interested in or related to the person so concerned, or
A
B
\
"(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or
otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant
or allows any other person so to do, or"
c
Sub-section (2) of section 5 of the 1947 Act provides for punishment in respect of an offence under sub-section (1) thereof, while
section 6 creates a bar against any court taking cognizance of an
offence under sections 161, 164 and 165 of the Code or sub-section (2)
D
of section 5 of the 1947 Act unless previous sanction of certain authorities has been obtained in that behalf.
Now we come to the provisions of the 1952 Act.
Section 3 thereof added to the Code section 165-A which created and laid down the
punishment for the offence of abetment of the offences covered
by
sections 161 and 165 of the Code. Section 6 of the 1952 Act dealt
with the appointment of Special Judges to try offences under sections
161, 165 or 165-A of the Code or sub-section (2) of section 5 of the
1947 Act, or conspiracy to commit any of those offences. Sub-section
\ (1) of section 7 of the 1952° Act barred the jurisdiction of Courts
} other than those of Special-Judges to try the offences mentioned in sec-
-'
tion 6, while sub-section (3) of section 7 provided that a Special Judge
trying any of the offences mentioned in section 6 could also try offences
with which the accused might be charged at the same trial in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
E
F
The 1955 Act added offences under sections 162, 163 and 164 of
G
the Code to the range of offences to try which the Special Judge had
exclusive jurisdiction, so that such jurisdiction thenceforth extended to
-. the trial of offences under sections 161 to 165-A of the Code and subsection (2) of section 5 of the 1947 Act.
•
Seven years later was promulgated the Kerala Act, section 2 whereB
of amended section 161 of the Code by adding thereto an Explanation,
the relevant part of which is extracted below :
i
A
B
c
D
802
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] l s.c.R.
' "Public Servant"-For purposes of this
section and
sections 162, 163, 164, 165 and 165-A, the words "public
servant" shall denote, besides those who are "public servants" within the meaning of that section under any law for
the time being in force, persons falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following, namely :
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
.....................................
..
-.................................. .
.....................................
Every member of the Board of Directors or the executive or managing committee and every officer or
servant of a co-operative society registered or deemed
to be registered under the law relating to co-operative
societies for the time being in force;
.....................................
..................... ·-· ............. .
.....................................
Section 3 of the Kerala Act may be reproduced in extenso
· 'In the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Central Act
E
2 of 1947)-
F
G
H
(i) for section 2, the following section shall be substituted, namely :-
"2. Interpretation-For the purposes of this Act, "public
servant" shall have the meaning assigned to it under the Explanation to section 161 of the Indian Penal Code as amended by the Kerala Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1962";
(ii) in section 5A, for the words, figures
and letter,
"under section 161, section 165 or section 165A," the words,
figures and letter "under sections 161, 162, 163, 164, 165 or
165A" shall be substituted;
(iii) in sub-section (1) of section 6, after clause (b),.
the following clause shall be inserted, namely :-
" (bb) in the case of a person falling under any of the
descriptions mentioned in items (i) to (viii) in the Explanation relating to ''Public Servant" in section 161 of the Indian
Penal Code as amended by the Kerala Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1962, save by or with the sanction of the State:
Government;"
I
!
~
I .
~
,
..
•
I
}
••
,/,
M.A. KOCHU DEVASSY v: KERALA (Koshal, J.)
803
4. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellants may be
summarised thus.
Section 2 of the Kerala Act brought members of
the executive committee or the servants of a registered co-operative
society within the ambit of the expression "public servant" only for the
purposes of sections 161 to 165A of the Code and for no other purpose
and therefore the use of the enlarged definition could not be made for
the purposes of the 194 7 Act.
Tt is true that section 2 of the 194 7
Act as substituted by the Kerala Act states that the expression "public
servant" shall have the same meaning for the purposes of the 1947 Act
as hllve been assigned to it under the enlarged definition of that expression in the Explanation added to section 161 of the Code, but then the
phrase "for the purposes of this Act" occurring in the said section 2
must be deemed to have a limited meaning and should be read down
as if they are restricted to only those purposes of the Act which concern
sections 161 to 165A of the Code.
Had the intention of the framers
of the substituted section been not to give such a limited meaning to
the said phrase but to use it in its literal sense, there was no point in
enlarging the definition of the expression "public servant" by adding an
Explanation to section 161 of the Code; for, in that case, the proper
and direct method of carrying out the intention would have been to
amend section 21 oJ; the Code itself, so as to make the definition therein embrace all the eight categories of persons mentioned in the added
Explanation.
5. We find ourselves wholly unable to accept any of the contentions. The terms of section 2 of the 194 7 Act as substituted by section 3 of the Kerala Act are absolutely clear and unambiguous and
when they lay down that the expression "public srevant" shall have a
particular meaning for the purposes of the Act, that meaning must be
given to the expression wherever it occurs in the Act. "For the purposes
of the Act" surely means for the purposes of all and not only some of
the provisions of the Act. If the intention was to limit the applicability of the definition of the expression "public servant" as contended,
the language used would not have been "for the purposes of the Act"
but something like "for the, purposes of the Act insofar as they relate
to the offences under sections 161 to 165A of the Indian Penal Code."
It may be noted here that section 2 of the 1947 Act as substituted
by the Kerala Act does not reproduce the definition of the expression
"public servant" as contained in section 161 of the Code, but states in
so many words that the expression shall have the meaning assigned to it
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
in the Explanation to the said section 161.
It follows that what
H
is brought into section 2 of the 194 7 Act is the meaning of the
expression as contained in the Explanation and not the entire Ex-
A
B
804
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 1 S.C.R.
planation itself, so that the words "for the purposes of this section
and sections 162, 163, 164, 165 and 165A" occurring in the Explanation are not transplanted into section 2 of the 194 7 Act as
substituted. If the contrary were true and the Explanation had to
be read word for word into the said section 2, the result would entail an absurdity; for then the section last mentioned would read
thus :
'For purposes of this Act, for purposes of the section ancf sections
162, 163, 164, 165 and 165A, the words "public
servant"
shall
I
denote ............ '
So read, the section makes no sense and ,
c the method of incorporation of the Explanation into the substituted
section 2 cannot be accepted as a correct method of interpretation of
the section.
Nor do we see any cogent reason why the legislature
should
have intended to limit the applicability of the enlarged definition as
D contended.
The Kerala Act carried out amendments to the 1947
Act insofar as the State of Kerala was concerned and the 1947
Act deals not only with offences under sections 161 to 165A of the
Code but also, and mainly, with those falling under various clauses
of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the 1947 Act. No reasonable line
of distinction between the offences under sections 161 to 165A of
E
the Code on the one hand and those punishable under sub-section
(2) of section 5 of the 1947 Act on the other appears feasible for
the purpose of conferment of exclusive jurisdiction on Special Judges
to try them.
From this point of view also, the interpretation canvassed on behalf of the appellants is untenable.
F
G
H
And the argument that the enlarged definition of the expression
"public servant" would not have been adopted in the form of the
Explanation to section 161 of the Code but would have been incorporated in section 21 thereof if it was to apply to the 194 7 Act as
a whole, though attractive at first sight, is really without substance.
In
our view, the method adopted is not without purpose.
Had the
definition been enlarged by an amendment of section 21 of the Code,
it would have made the eight new categories of persons brought by
it Within the ambit of the expression "public servant" liable to punishment not only for offences under sections 161 to 165A of the Code
but also for numerous other offences specified in the Code relating
to public servants, as also to offences so related and created by other
Acts wherein the definition of "public servant" occurring in section
21 of the Code has been adopted as such.
It was presumably to
avoid such a result and to limit the scope of the applicability of the
I
\ "
'
•• "
..
•
l •
I
\
)
M.A. KOCHU DEVASSY v. KERALA (Koshal, 1.)
805
definition to bribery, criminal misconduct and allied offences committed by public servants, that the legislature in its wisdom adopted
the device of amending section 161 of the Code by adding the Explantation to it and by providing also that the enlarged definition shall
govern all the provisions of the 1947 Act.
6. Not finding any merit in the contentions raised on behalf of
the appellants, we hold that the enlarged definition of the expression
"public servant" as contained in the Explanation added to section 161
of the Code by section 2 of the Kerala Act governs all the provisions
of the 1947 Act, that the appellants are public servants within the
meaning of that enlarged definition by reason of the language
employed in clause (iv) of the Explanation and that, therefore,
the
offences under clause ( c) of sub-section ( 1) of section 5 of the
1947 Act said to have been committed by them are triable exclusively
by Special Judges appointed under the 1952 Act.
7. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
P.H.P.
Appeals dismissed.
A
B
c