STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus LALJIT RAJSHI SHAH AND ORS.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus LALJIT RAJSHI SHAH AND ORS.

Persons deemed to be 'public servants' under Section 161 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act by reference to Section 21 of the IPC are 'public servants' only for purposes of the Co-operative Societies Act. They cannot be prosecuted as 'public servants' for offences under IPC or the Prevention of Corruption Act, unless Section 21 IPC itself is amended to include them.

Parties
Appellant: State of Maharashtra; Respondents: Lalit Rajshi Shah and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeals Nos. 752 755 a of 1995 / Appeal From Bombay High Court Judgment Dated 12/13.1.94
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Definition of Public Servant, Legal Fiction, Jurisdiction and Sanction in Corruption Prosecutions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Maharashtra

Appellant

Lalit Rajshi Shah and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeals Nos. 752 755 a of 1995 / Appeal From Bombay High Court Judgment Dated 12/13.1.94

  1. 1 Whether chairman and members of managing committee of a co-operative society are 'public servants' for purposes of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act
  2. 2 Whether sanction to prosecute is required under Prevention of Corruption Act for such persons

Ratio Decidendi

Persons deemed to be 'public servants' under Section 161 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act by reference to Section 21 of the IPC are 'public servants' only for purposes of the Co-operative Societies Act. They cannot be prosecuted as 'public servants' for offences under IPC or the Prevention of Corruption Act, unless Section 21 IPC itself is amended to include them.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of Bombay High Court affirmed
  • No interference by Supreme Court