Case: State of Karnataka Vs. M. Muniswamy

This appeal by the State of Karnataka is against the judgment of the High Court by which the respondent was acquitted of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 besides Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent was employed as Head Guard in the Security Department of Ashoka Hotel, Bangalore. He is alleged to have concocted some bills for supporting a bogus claim for medical reimbursement on the pretension that his son Raja was treated in a hospital. The Special Court established under the Prevention of Corruption Act tried the case and found him guilty and convicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each under various counts. When he filed an appeal before the High Court a learned Single Judge mainly considered the question whether the respondent was a public servant falling within the ambit of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Single Judge found that evidence in the case is totally insufficient for holding that Ashoka Hotel or Indian Tourism Development Corporation (of which Ashoka Hotel is a unit) was a government company. Accordingly the High Court found that the whole trial was without jurisdiction before the Special Court. It is unnecessary to extract Section 21 IPC either in its entirety or the "twelfth" clause of it which alone was found relevant as for this case. If Indian Tourism Development Corporation was not shown to be a government company, an employee of Ashoka Hotel cannot become a public servant falling within the purview of Section 21 IPC. In this particular case no document has been produced to show that Indian Tourism Development Corporation was a government company. PW 16, the General Manager of Ashoka Hotel did not say that ITDC was a government company. All that he said was that it was a corporation created under the Companies Act. If PW 16 had further said that the Government held more than 50% of the shares of that Company the Court could perhaps have come to the conclusion that, even in spite of a specific statement made by the witness, the Corporation was a government company. As we have checked up the evidence of PW 16 we have noticed that the witnesses had not stated anything about that crucial aspect. It is important in this context to point out that even when the respondent was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no question could be put by the court regarding the status of the Corporation as a government company. Due to paucity of evidence in this case we are unable to disturb the finding of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the prosecution failed to establish that ITDC was a government company. It is unnecessary for us to go into the other aspects of the evidence. We make it clear that the decision made by the learned Single Judge in this particular case will not debar ITDC from establishing in any other case that it is a government company.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]In this particular case no document has been produced to show that Indian Tourism Development Corporation was a government company. PW 16, the General Manager of Ashoka Hotel did not say that ITDC was a government company. All that he said was that it was a corporation created under the Companies Act. If PW 16 had further said that the Government held more than 50% of the shares of that Company the Court could perhaps have come to the conclusion that, even in spite of a specific statement made by the witness, the Corporation was a government company. As we have checked up the evidence of PW 16 we have noticed that the witnesses had not stated anything about that crucial aspect. It is important in this context to point out that even when the respondent was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no question could be put by the court regarding the status of the Corporation as a government companyDue to paucity of evidence in this case we are unable to disturb the finding of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the prosecution failed to establish that ITDC was a government company. It is unnecessary for us to go into the other aspects of the evidence. We make it clear that the decision made by the learned Single Judge in this particular case will not debar ITDC from establishing in any other case that it is a government company.