Tamilnadu Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1973-Whether inconsistent with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 & Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952-Art. 254 of Constitution of India-Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by legislature of states-Effect of. 

Constitution of India 1950-Arts. 164 & 161-Nature, constitutional position and status of Minister Dr Chief Minister.

Indian Penal Code 1869-S. 21(12)-Public servant & Criminal Procedure Code 1898-S. 199(2)-'other public servant'-Scope of-Chief Minister whether 'public servant'.

Words & Phrases-'in the service or pay of the Government'-S. 21(12)(a) IPC-Meaning of

In December 1973, the Madras Legislature passed an Act known as the Tamil Nadu Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1973 after obtaining the assent of the President. The State Act was amended by Act 16 of 1974 and the President's assent was received on April 10, 1974. The provisions of the State Act were brought into force with effect from May 8, 1974. The State Act was repealed and the President's assent to the repealing Act was given on September 6, 1977.

The Act provided for the investigation in respect of a complaint of criminal misconduct against any public man by a Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner of Inquiries appointed for this purpose. The word 'public man' had been given a specific connotation in s. 2(c) of the Act and clearly excluded a Government servant.

The appellant was the former Chief Minister of the State of Tamilnadu. On June 15, 1976 the Chief Secretary to the State Government requested the Central Bureau of Investigation to make a detailed investigation into certain allegations that the appellant and others were alleged to have abused their official position in the matter of purchase of wheat from Punjab. With the State Governor's sanction a charge sheet was filed after investigation for the prosecution of the appellant under ss. 161, 468 and 471 IPC and s. 5(2) read with S. 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly having derived pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 4 to 5 lakhs for passing favourable orders in respect of some firms.

The appellant applied for discharge under s. 239 Cr. P.C. on the ground that the prosecution against him suffered from various legal and constitutional infirmities. On the application being rejected, the appellant applied to the High Court' for quashing the proceedings and for setting aside the order of the Special Judge refusing to discharge him. The High Court rejected the applications.

In the appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant :

(1) Even though the State Act was repealed, the provisions of the Central Acts having themselves been protanto repealed by the State Act when it was passed could not be pressed into service for the purpose of prosecuting the appellant unless these provisions were re-enacted by the appropriate legislature.

(2) It was contended that even assuming that the State Act had ceased to exist and the Central Acts applied, the appellant cannot be prosecuted under any of the sections of the Penal Code or the Corruption Act, because by virtue of the position that the appellant enjoyed as Chief Minister, there was no relationship of master and servant between him and the Government and he was acting as a constitutional functionary, and therefore could not be described as a .'public servant' as contemplated by s. 21(12) of the Penal Code.

(3) The provisions contained in the State Act run counter to those of the Central Acts in respect of the following matters; (a) The procedure for investigation of- the offences by a Central Agency as contemplated by the Corruption Act b dispensed with and is instead invested in · a Commissioner appointed under the State Act. (b) The provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, regarding the grant of sanction under s. 197 of the Code to the accused is given a complete go by and instead a Commissioner is appointed to hold a regular inquiry for himself and then to submit his report. An accused who has to be tried under the State Act is thus deprived of the protection afforded to every Government servant regarding grant of a sanction by the appointing authority. Therefore the protection if any, given by the State Act is purely illusory, and

(4) By virtue of the fact that the State Act has obtained the assent of the President, it will be deemed to be a dominant legislation, and therefore it would over-rule the Central Acts.