- (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) The main question that arises in this application revision before the Court is whether the accused-applicant was a 'public servant' or not within the meaning of S. 21, I. P. C. The two Courts below have held that be was a public servant within the meaning of cl. 9 to S. 31 of the Code, which runs as below : "Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of the Crown, or to make any survey, assessment or contract on behalf of the Crown, or to execute any revenue process, or to investigate, or to report, on any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of the Crown, or to make, authenticate or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interests of the Crown, or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of the Crown and every officer in the service or pay of the Crown or remunerated by fees of commission for the performance of any public duty."
(3.) The accused applicant, admittedly, at the time in question was a servant of the Soldiers' Board at Ajmer. The appellate Court below in its judgment writes to observe as follows : 'A servant under the Soldiers' Board is no doubt not a Government servant, but the Soldiers' Board Office is akin to a semi-Government office partly financed by Government and partly by public subscription, manned and run by a committee consisting of Government officials and private individuals of which the Deputy Commissioner, Ajmer, is the President and who has got the authority to appoint the clerks of that office or to remove them from their office. Having regard to the constitution of that office and to the functions which it has to perform in looking to the comforts and benefits of soldiers and their dependents. I am of opinion that the Court below was right in coming to the view that the appellant came within the description of "public servant" within the meaning of S. 21, Cl. (9), Indian Penal Code.';