Chopra, J. - (1.) RAJ Kumar Respondent was convicted by Magistrate I Class, Sultanpur, Under Section 409, I.P.C. and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay Rs 200/ - as fine, or in. default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six month Section In appeal, the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, has set aside the conviction on the sole ground that Section 409, I.P.C. was pro tan to repealed by Section 5(1)(e), Proveulinn if Corruption Act, (2 of 1947). Direction has, however, been given that "the prosecution might clallan him (the accused) Under Section 5(a)(c), Prevention of Corruption Act, after going through the necessary formalities." This is a State appeal Under Section 417, Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of the Sessions Judge.
(2.) THE case against the Respondent is that when posted as Rent Controller in the Custodian's Department at Sultanpur in the year 1950, he collected rents amounting to Rs. 21/ - from different lessees of evacuee property and issued receipts for the same, He did not deposit the said amount in the State treasury, but misappropriated it for his own use. A case Under Section 409, I.P.C. was registered against him on 17 -5 -1950 in police -station Sultanpur. The challan was submitted in the Court of Magistrate I Class, Sultanpur, on. 18 -11 -1951. The Respondent was charged Under Section 409, I.P.C. on 21 -5 -1952, and convicted and sentenced as stated already, on 3 -9 -1952. It cannot be denied that an offence which falls Under Section 409, I.P.C, and is committed by a public servant, would also fall Under Section 5(1)(e), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The question is whether with regard to public servants the legislature intended to abrogate the provisions or Section 409, I.P.C. and to provide that a public, servant committing an offence Under Section 409, I.P.C. can only be proceeded against under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. There is no express provision in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to repeal Section 409, I.P.C. so far as it relates to public, servant Section It has then to be seen if the provisions of the later Act are so inconsistent with, or repugnant to, those of the earlier Act that the two cannot stand together and the earlier should be taken to have been repealed by necessary implication. A simple reading of the two provisions makes it abundantly clear that there is no repugnancy or inconsistency between the two and that the one is enacted as a supplementary measure to the other, with a different and special object. The fact that the Prevention of Corruption Act provides for a different mode of procedure for trial or makes the offence differently punishable does not involve any inconsistency with the earlier enactment. The two provisions can co -exist side by side even though the one may, to some extent, overlap the other.
(3.) DEALING with a similar situation Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (10th Edition) at page 186, observes: It would seem that an Act which (without altering the nature of the offence, as by making it felony instead of misdemeanors) imposes a new kind of punishment, or provides a new course of procedure for that which was already an offence, at least at common law, is usually regarded as cumulative and as not superseding the pre -existing law.;