Raja Bahadur K. C. Deo Bhonj v. Raghunath Misra and Others

952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. _1958_ it. Merely because a son uses a pistol and causes the death of another at the instance of his father is no :~=~:her mitigating circumstance which the courts would take ##### _••_ v. into consideration. _The State of_ _u._ _P._ In our opinion the courts below have rightly imposed the sentence of death on Mizaji. Other appel_Kapur_ _1_ - lants being equally guilty under s. 149, Indian Penal Code, have been rightly sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appeals must therefore be dismissed. _I_ _**December**_ _**18.**_ _Appeals dismissed._ RAJA BAHADUR K. C. DEO BHANJ _v._ RAGHUNATH MISRA AND OTHERS (SYED JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAs and J. L. KAPUR, J,J.) _Electio11-Corrupt Practice-Perso11_ _in_ _service_ _of Government,_ _obtaining assistance of-Sarpanch of_ _Grama_ _Panchayat_ _in_ _Orissa-_ _Whether such a pel'Son-lf_ _Sarpanch is a revenue_ _officer_ _or a village_ _accountant-Repreuntatio11_ _of the_ _People Act,_ _r95r_ _(43_ _of_ _r95r),_ s. _r23(7)(j)-Orissa_ _Grama_ _Panchayats Act, r948_ _(Orissa_ _XV_ _of_ _r948)._ The appellant was declared elected to the Orissa Legislative Assembly and the first respondent filed an election petition challenging the election, inter alia. on the ground that the appel- _r_ !ant had committed the corrupt practice nnder s. r23(7)(f) Representation of the People Act, 1951, by obtaining the assistance of Sarpanches of certain Grama Panchayats for the furtherance of the prospects of his election. The petition was dismissed by the Election Tribunal but on appeal, was allowed by the High Court and the election was set aside. The High Court held that a Sarpanch was a person in the service of the Government within the meaning of s. r23(7)(f) of the Act. _Held,_ that a Sarpanch of Grama Panchayat in Orissa was not **-4il** one of the persons contemplated bys. r23(7)(f) and consequently _J_ the appellant was not guiliy of any corrupt practice in obtaining assistance of Sarpanches. Two conditions must co-exist before s. r23(7)(f) could apply to a Sarpanch: (i) that he was in the service of the Government, and (ii) that he fell within the class (1) s.o.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 953 specified in cl. (f). There was a distinction between "serving _rg58_ under the Government" and "in the service of the Government"; while one may serve under a Government one may not _Raja Bahadur_ necessarily be in the service of the Government; under th~ _K. c._ _Deo_ _Bhan;_ latter expression one not only served under the Government but v. was in the service of the Government and this imported the _Raghunath_ _Misri•_ relationship of master and servant. None of the provisions of _and Others_ the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1948, suggested that as between the State Government and the Grama Panchayat and its Sarpanch any such relationship existed. The mere power of control and supervision of Government over a Grama Panchayat exerfi;ising administrative functions or performing duties of ·governmental nature could not.make the GramaPanchayat or its Sarpanch a person in the service of the Government. The Sarpanch was the executive head of the Grama Panchayat: he was neither appointed nor paid by the Government; he could only be removed by Government on grounds of negligence, inefficiency or misbehaviour. He was not under the control of the Government while discharging his functions and could not be said to be in service of the Government. The second condition also did not exist as a Sarpauch was neither a revenue officer nor a village accountant and as such was not one of the class -of officers mentioned in cl. (f) of s. 123(7). CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 480 of 1958. Appeal by special leave from the judgment a.nd order dated April 15, 1958, of the Orissa High Court in Misc. Appeal No. 194 of 1957, a.rising out of the judgment aud order dated October 26, 1957, ·of the Election Tribunal, Puri, in Election Case No. 1/67 of 1957. _Veda Vyasa_ and _A._ _V._ _Viswanatha Sastri, R. Patnaik_ and _Ratnaparkhi, A. G.,_ for the appellant. _H. Mahapatra_ and _P. K. Chatterjee_ for _G._ _0. Mathur,_ for respondent No. 1. 1958. December 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM, J.-The appellant and the respondent No. 1 were, amongst others, candidates for election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly from the Daspalla .doublemember constituency in which a seat was reserved for a scheduled caste candidate. We are not concerned with the election of the scheduled caste candidate. 120 (lfWll _f._ 954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. For the general seat the election was contested by the appellant, respondent No. l and respondent No. 3. _Raj•_ _Bahad"'_ The appellant obtained 17, 700 votes, respondent _**K. C.**_ _**Deo Bhonj**_ v. No. l 15,568 votes and respondent No. 3 3,589 votes. _R•ghunath_ _.'</is••_ The election was held on February 27, 1957, and the _and_ _Othm_ appellant was declared elected on March 5, 1957. Respondent No. l filed an election petition question_**Imam**_ _**j.**_ ing, on various groupds, the election of the appellant .. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition holding that no grounds had been established to invalidate the. election. Respondent No. l appealed to the High Court of Orissa against the order of the Election Tribunal. One of the grounds, amongst the many grounds, taken by Respondent No. l to invalidate the election of the appellant was that the nominati~n of respondent No. 3 was improperly accepted as he was disqualified from contesting the election being a Sarbarakar of the 10 villages in the district of Nayagarh mentioned in the schedule to the petition. The High Court held that the office of Sarbarakar was an office of profit under the State Government of Orissa. Respondent No. 3 was accordingly disqualified from being a member of the Assembly. It, however, held that the acceptance of the nomination of respondent No. 3 had not materially affected the election of the returned candidate under cl. (d) of sub-s. (l) of s. 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Three grounds were urged before the High Court in support of the contention that the appellant had been guilty of corrupt practice. One was that of bribery; the second was that the appellant and his agents had published a pamphlet, Exbt. 8, containing statements which were false and which he knew or believed to be false in relation to the personal character and conduct of respondent No. l and in relation to his candidature; and the third was the obtaining and· procuring by respondent No. l of assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of his election from Sarpanches . of certain Grama Panchayats. With regard to the first two grounds the High Court held that the same _i_ # ' (I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 955 had not been established. With reference to the third ground the High Court was of the opinion that a _Raja_ _BaAadM•_ Sarpanch of the Grama Panchayat, though not a _K. c._ _D•o_ _811,,.,;_ Government servant appointed by the Government, v. was none the less a person in the service of the R~ghunatls _Misra_ Government as he performed many of the govern- _and_ 0111 ... mental duties and was also removable by the Government and such a person came within the provisions _Imam_ _]._ of s. 123(7)(f) of the Act. A Sarpanch exercised under t.he Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Orissa Act, mostly governmental functions like collection of taxes, maintenance of public accounts, etc. It thought that if such a person was not brought under s. l23(7)(f) there would be " a lot of undue influence exercised on the voters by these persons who in the village exercised a lot of influence considering the nature of their powers and the ideas of the village people ". The High Court accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the appellant's election but was of the opinion that although its finding resulted in the appellant being disqualified for membership of Parliament and the Legislature of every State for six years under s. 140 of the Act, this was a fit case for the removal of the disqualification by the Election Commission under s. 144 of the Act. The appellant applied to the High Court for a certificate that this was a fit case for appeal to this Court. The certificate was granted, but one of the learned Judges was in some doubt whether this was a case in which the provisions of Art. 133(l)(c) of the Constitution applied. On behalf of respondent No. I an objection had been taken that Art. 133(l)(c) of the Constitution did not apply arid the High Court could not have certified that this was a fit case for appeal to this Court. It seems to us unueces;;ary to decide whether in a case of this kind the provisions of Art. 133(l)(c) applied because, in our opinion, even if they did not apply and the High Court could not have issued a certificate, this was just the kind of case where we would have granted special leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution because the appeal raised a point of law of considerable public importance. 956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. _1958_ In order to remove all doubts in the matter, we . _h_ grant the appellant special leave to appeal against the _Ra7•_ _li•_ _•dur_ d ' ' f h H' h C f 0 · d d t _K._ _c._ _Deo_ _Bhanj_ ec1s10n - t e 1g ourt - nssa an procee '" deal with the appeal on that basis. _Ragh•••th Misra_ The Act was amended in 1956. Before the amcnd_and_ _Others_ mcnt the rdevant portion of s. 123 for the purpose of I this appeal was contained in sub-s. (8) which was as _**Imam].**_ follows: " (8) The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure by a candidate or his agent or, by any other person with the connivance of a candidate or his agent, any assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of the candidate's election from any person serving under the Government of India or the Government of any State other than the giving of vote by such person. _Explanation-For_ the purposes of this clause(a) a person serving under the Government of India shall not include any person who has been declared by the Central Government to be a person to whom the provisions of this clause shall not apply; (b) a person serving under the Government of any State shall include a patwari, chaukidar, dafedar, zaildar, shanbagh, karnam, talati, talari, patil, village munsif, village headman or any other village officer, by w batever name he is called, employed in that State, whether the office he holds is a whole-time office or not, but shall not include any person (other than any such village officer as aforesaid) who has been declared by the State Government to be a person to whom the provisions of this clause shall not apply." After the amendment the relevant portion of 8. **123** is in sub-s. (7) which reads as follows: " (7) The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure ·by a candidate or his agent or, by any other person, any assistance {other than giving of vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election, from any pe.rson in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the following classes, namely :(a) gazetted officers; (b) stipendiary judges and magistrates ; # ' _i_ (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 957 (c) members of the armed forces of the Union; (d) members of the police forces ; _Raj&1_ _Bahadur_ (e) excise officers; _1<._ _c._ _Deo_ _Bhanj_ (f) revenue officers including villag@ accountants, v. such as, patwaris, lekhpals, talatis, karnams and the _Raghunath Misra_ like but excluding other village officers ; and _and_ _Othm_ (g) such other class of persons in the service of _Imam]._ the Government as may be prescribed. _Imam]._ _Explanation-(!)_ In this section the expression "agent " includes an election agent, a polling agent and any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the consent of the candidate. (2) For the purposes of clause (7), a person shall be deemed to assist in the furtherance of the prospects of a. candidate's election if he acts as an election agent, or polling agent or a counting agent of that candidate." \. •. There is a material difference between the phraseology of s. 123(8) before it was amended a.nd s. 123(7) as now contained in the Act. Under the former provision there was a prohibition against obtaining any assistance for the furtherance of the prospect of a candidate's election from any person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State other than the giving of a vote by such person. The Explanation, however, gave authority to the Central Government to declare auy person serving under it to be a person to whom these provisions would not apply. In other words, unless there was such a declaration these provisions covered every person serving under the Government of India. Clause (b) of the Explana tion further widened the meaning of any person serving under the Government of a State by including the persons specified therein and any other village officer, by whatever name he may be called, employed in that State, but the State Government was authorized to declare that any such person, other than any such village officer, to be a person to whom these provisions did not apply. The language of the provisions of s. 123(8) covered a wide field and referred to every person serving under the Government of India or a 958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. State unless such person was declared to be one to whom the provisions would not apply. After the _Raja_ _Hahadu•_ amendment, however, the provisions of s. 123(7) are _**K.**_ **C.** _**Deo Bhanj**_ v. narrower in scope. These provisions apply to any _R•gh10,ath_ _Mi"a_ person in the service of the Government belonging to _and_ _Othm_ the classes specified in els. (a) to (g) and none else. For the purpose of this appeal it is cl. (f) which will have _**Imam**_ _**j.**_ to be conSidcred, as the other clauses cannot in any case apply. The principal question for considerat.ion is whether a Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat constituted under the Orissa Act is a person in the service of the Government of the State of Orissa and belongs to the class specified in cl. (f) of s. 123(7). Obviously, two things will have to be established before the provisions of s. 123(7){f) can apply to a Satpanch of a Grama Panchayat constituted under the Orissa Act: (I) That such a person is in the service of the Government and (2) that he comes within the class specified in cl. (f). It would not be enough to establish only oue of these conditions. It is necessary, therefore, to decide, in the first instance, whether a Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat under the Orissa Act is a person in the service of the Government of the State of Orissa. For this purpose, it will be necessary to consider whether any of the provisions of the Orissa Act rela.ting to the Grama Panchayat and the duties to be discharged by the Sarpanch indicate that the Sarpanch is in t.he service of the Government, because independent of those provisions there is no material upon which any such conclusion can be arrived at. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that under the Orissa Act a Grama Sasan can be constituted by notification bv the State Government. The Grama Sasan is to be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire and hold property, to transfer auy property held by it and to enter into contracts and to do all other things necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Orissa Act and to sue and be sued in its corporate name. For every Grama Sasan there shall be a Grama Panchayat and the functions of the ### ' . _I_ .,,, (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 95U _Imam_ _)._ Grama Sasan shall be exercised, performed and discharged by the Grama Panchayat. The Executive power of the Grama Panchayat shall Le exercised by K~at D~:h~~~~ij the Sarpanch elected under s. 10, who shall act under v. the authority of the said Grama Panchayat.. The _llaghimatli_ _Mi.,a_ Grama Sasan shall elect, in the prescribed manner, _and_ _Others_ from amongst its members r.rn Executive Committee which will be known as the Orama Panchayat and _Imam_ _)._ the Grama Panchayat shall elect, in the prescribed manner, a Sarpanch. The appointment of a Sarpanch, therefore, was not by the Government. The Sarpanch was elected by the Grama Panchayat which in turn was elected by the Grama Sasan and the Grama Sasan consisted of a village or a group of contiguous villages and its members were the population residing in the Grama. Ai:1 the appointment of the Sarpanch is not by Government, this would be one of the factors in holding that the 1-iarpanch was not iu the service of the Government. Under s. 8, the Sarpanch has to act under the authority of the Grama Panchayat. _Prima_ _facie,_ this would also be a factor to discountenance the theory that a Sarpanch was in the service of the Government. Another factor which would militate against the theory that a Sarpanch was in the service of the Government was that he received no remuneration from the Government. The po\ver to remove a Sarpanch by the State Government is stated in s. 16 but the removal can only be for negligence, inefficiency or misbehaviour. This restricted power of removal was not a conclusive factor on the question whether a Sarpanch was in the service of the Government. It was accordingly urged that three important factors to he taken into consideration in deciding whether a person was in the service of the Government, namely, appointment of the person, such a person to a.ct under the authority of the Government and one who received remuneration from Government were lacking in the case of a Sarpanch. The restricted power of removal by the Government was not a conclusive factor. Instances were not lacking in the Municipal Acts of various States where the State Government had vested in it the power of removal of 960 SUPREME COlJR'l' REPOR'l'S (1959] _Supp._ a Chairman of the Municipality, but it could not be _Raja_ _Bahadu•_ said that the members of the Municipality or their _K._ c. _Deo_ _Bhanj_ Chairman were in the service of the Government. v. On behalf of respondent No. 1 it was urged that the _Raghunath_ _.,,;,,a_ expression "in service of Government" had a wider _•nd_ _Othm_ concept than the expression "serving . under the _Imam_ _J._ Government". Exercise of governmental functions would amount to being in Government's service. A Sarpanch could be equated with a patwari, lekhpal, talati, karnam, etc., and it was nut necessary to considcr whether he was in. service of Government because the word " and " before the words " belonging _to any of the following classes" should be read as "or". He referred to the various provisions of the Orissa Act in support of his submission that a Sarpanch must be rngarded as one in service of Government. Under s. 10(2) the District Magistrate was to decide the manner in which the local area of any Grama Sasan shall _be_ divided into electoral wards and the number of members to be returned for each of such wards. Under sub-s. (4) of this section the number of members of a Grama Panchayat 2hall be fixed by the District Magistrate. Under sub-s. (6) if in an election tho requisite number of members of a Grama Panchayat is not elected, the State Government shall appoint persons to fill up the vacancies and the Grama Panchayat so constituted, consisting of elected and appointed members, shall elect a Sarpanch from amongst its members. Under sub-s. (8) the State Government was empowered by notification for sufficient cause to extend the term of office of any Grama Panchayat for a period of one year. Under s. 11 the State Government may by notification direct that general election of members of a. Grama Panchayat be held at any time before the expiration of the term of office of such members including its Sarpanch. Under s. 14 the State Government is authorized to decide any dispute or difficulty arising out of the interpretation of any of the provisions of the Orissa Act or any rule made thereunder or any difficulty which arises in the working of the Act. Under s. 16 the State Government is empowered _(_ . (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 961 to remove a Sarpanch on the ground of negligence, _z95B_ inefficiency, or misbehaviour. Under s. J 7 a Sarpanch _Raja_ _Bahadur_ shn,ll give effect to the decision of the Urama Pancha- _J(._ c. _Deo_ _Bhanj_ yat; provided that if in his opinion any such decision v. is subversive of peace and order in the locality or _Ragh11na11i_ _Misra_ results in manifest injustice or unfairness to an indivi- _and_ _Others_ dual or body of individuals or a particular community or is generally against public interest, he shall refer _Imam]._ the matter to the Sub-divisional Magistrate and thereafter act according to such directions as he may receive from such Magistrate. Under sub-s. (2) of this section, the Sub-divisional Magistrate may, on his own motion or on the representation by the Sarpanch, set aside a decision of the Grama Panchayat, if he finds that the decision is of the nature as stated above. Under sub-s. (3) of s. 18 the Sub-divisional Magistrate may nominate any member of the Grama Panchayat to carry on the duties of the Sarpanch till a new Sarpanch is elected on the resignation of the former. Under s. 22 a Grama Panchayat may, if a majority of its menibers so decide, with the previous approval of the Government and if the Provincial Government so direct undertake within its area the control and administration of and be responsible in the matters mentioned in els. (a) to (y). Clause (x) refers to the doing of anything the expenditure on which is declared by the Provincial Government or by a District Board with t.he sanction of the Provincial Government to be an appropriate charge on the Grama Sasan's funds. Even in the matter of appointing staff to a Grama _Imam]._ Panchayat., under s. 32 the Grama Panchayat has to prepare a scheme containing it.s proposals for the employment of whole-time or part-time staff, for their salaries and allowances and shall submit the same to the prescribed authority who shall have the power to approve or modify or reject the scheme. Section 35 refers to the liability of the members of the Grama Panchayat or of any Joint Committee or 'any other Committee constituted under the Orissa Act and provides for the institution of snits against them for loss, waste or misapplication of any property belonging to the 12 [ I 962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. Grama Pancbayat as the result of direct consequence of bis neglect or miscouduct while a member of the _**Raja**_ _**Bahadu,.**_ G p b J C ' h _K. c. Deo Bhanj_ rama anc ayat, oint omm1ttee or ot er Comv. mittee. Under sub-s. (3) .the Provincial Government _Raghunath_ _Mis.a_ has the power to institute such a suit on its own initia _and_ _Others_ tive. Under s. 36 all members of the Grama Pancba. ' yat shall be deemed to be public servants and in the _**Imam**_ _**J.**_ definition of" legal remuneration " in s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, the word " Government" for the purpose of this section shall be deemed to include a, Grama Sasan or a Grama Pancbayat. Under s. 44(2) a Grama Pancbayat with the previous sanction of the State Government may impose a tax, toll, fee or rate on matters referred to in els. (a) to (n). Under sub.a. (4) the District Magistrate is authorized to review or revise the tax, toll, fee or rate imposed by Grama Pancbayat. Under sub-s. (5) the District Magistrate may by an order in writing require the Grama Pancbayat to levy or increase any tax, toll, fee or rft.te specified in sub-s. (2) subject to the conditions and restrictions contained therein, if in bis opinion the income of the Grama Panchayat is or is likely to be inadequate for the proper discharge of the duties imposed under s. 21 or undertaken under s. 22. Under s. 97 the District Magistrate is authorized to exercise general powers of inspection, supervision and control over the performance of the administrative duties of the Grama Panchayat. Section 98 contains the general powers of the District Magistrate and s. 99 contains the emergency powers of the District Magistrate in relation to a Grama Panchayat whereby he may by an order in writing prohibit the execution or further execution of a resolution or an order passed or made by it. Under s. 117-A the State Government may delegate any of its powers, except the power to make rules, to be exercised or discharged by any officer subordinate to State Government. It was urged on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the above provisions of the Orissa Act clearly ma.de the Grama. Pancbaya.t come under the control and supervision of the State Government and that the duties and functions of the Grama Pancbayat to be performed by its ' _I_ ./ \ _'"-(._ (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT H.EPORTS 963 Sarpanch were governmental duties. It was further _i958_ urged that in considering whether a Barpanch was _R_ . ' h - f _n_ t th . l _a;a_ _8 a,1adur_ [, ] a person 111 t e servwe o uovernmen e essent1a _J<._ c. _Dea_ _Bhanj_ elements to be borne in mind were the control and v. supervision over him by the State Government and its _Raghunatll_ _Misra_ power to remove him from his office. Neither the _and Others_ absence of appointment by the State Government nor the non-payment of remuneration by it would be _Imam]._ factors indicating that he was not in the service of the Government. In our opinion, there is a distinction between 'scrv' ing under the Government' and 'in the service of the Government', because while one may serve under a Government, one may not necessarily be in the service of the Government; under the latter expression one not only serves under the Government but is in the service of the Government and it imports the relationship of master and servant. There are, according to Batt (On the Law of Master and Servant), two essentials to this relationship: (1) The servant must be under the duty of rendering personal services to the master or to others in his behalf and (2) the master must have the right to control the servant's work either personally or by another servant or agent and, according to him, "It is this right of control or interference, of being entitled to tell the servant when to work (within the hours of service) or when not to work, and what work to do and how to do it (within the terms of such service), which is the dominant characteristic in this relation and marks off the servant from an independent contractor, or from one employed merely to give to his employer the fruits or results of his labour. In the latter case, the contractor or performer is not ur.der his employer's control in doing the work or effecting the service; he has to shape and manage his work so as to give the result he has contracted to effect. Consequently, a jobbing gardener is no more the servant of the person employing him than the doctor employed by a local authority to act as visiting physician to its fever hospital". None of the provisions of the Orissa Act suggest that as between the State Government and the Orama 964 SUPREME COUH,'1.' REPORTS [1959) l:lupp. _'95_ _[8 ]_ Panchayat and its Sarpanch any such relationship _JJ_ _a_ exists. lt is true that the State Government, the Dis_I_ _[, ]_ [. ] 1 _K. '"1"_ c. _D'°_ "'" _flhanj_ "' tr1ct · M · agrntrate an d h t e S b d. . . u . 1v1s1one. l M ag1s . t ra t e v. have been given certain powers of control and supervi _RaghuuaJh_ _Mim•_ sion over the Grama Panchayat but those powers of _and Others_ control and supervision are in relation to the adminis trative functions of the Grama Panchayat and the _ln1atn}._ Sarpanch. The Grama Panchayat is an autonomous body exercising functions conferred under the statute. It can hardly be said that the Grama Panchayat in so functioning is in the service of the Government. Its administrative functions are akin to the functions generally performed by Municipalities and District Boards. It would be a conception hitherto unknown to suppose that any Municipality or District Board was in the service of the Go\•ernment merely because it exercised administrative functions and to some extent was under the control of the Government. Co-operative societies generally are Yery much under the control and supervision by the State Government or one of its ollicers authorized in that behalf. It would be difficult to accept the suggestion that because of that a Cooperative society and its members must be regarded as iu the service of the Government. Even with respect to companies, progressively, legislation has been giving powc1· to the Government to control and supervise them. Under s. 259 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, in certain circumstances, any increase in the numhcr of its directors must be approved by the Central Government and shall become void if it is disapproved. Under s. 269, in the case of a public company or a private company which is a subsidiary of a public company, the appointment of a managing or whole-time director for the first time after the commencement of this Act in the case of an existing company, and after the expiry of three months from the date of its incorporation in the case of any other company, shall not have any effect unless approved by the Central Government; and shall become void if, and in so far as, it is disapproved by the Central Government. Under s. 408 the Government has the power to prevent mismanagement in the affairs of the _I_ _(_ "'-" (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOB.TS 965 Company and under the proviso in lieu of passing any _1958_ order under sub-s. (1) the Ce1itral Government may, if _R_ . _B_ _a_ 1 the company has not availed itself of the option given _K.at 0,:_ '~h~:,j to it under s. 265, direct the company to amend its v. Articles in the manner provided in that section and _Raglumath_ _llfora_ make fresh appointments of directors in pursuance of _and_ _Others_ the Articles as so amended, within such time as may be specified in that behalf by the Central Government. _Imam_ _j._ Section 409 empowers the Central Government to prevent change in the number of directors likely to affect the company prejudicially. It could not be said, because of these provisions, that a company was in the service of the Government. It seems to us, therefore, that the mere power of control and supervision of a Grama Panchayat exercising administrative functions would not make the Grama Panchayat or any of its members a person in the service of the Government. Even if it could be said that the Grama Panchayat in the exercise of its administrative functions exercised duties in the nature of Governmental duties it could not thereby be said that its Sarpanch was in the service of the Government. So far as the Sarpanch is concerned, he is merely the executive head of the Grama Panchayat which carries out its functions through him. He is not appointed by the Government. He is not paid by the Government. He does not exercise his functions as one in the service of the Government and he can only be removed on the ground of negligence, inefficiency or misbehaviour. We have been unable to find a single provision of the Orissa _Imam_ _j._ Act from which we could say that a Sarpanch is a person in the service of the Government. Reference had been made on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to s. 31 of the Orissa Act which authorizes the Grama Panchayat to enter into a contract with the State Government to collect all or any class of taxes or dues payable to the Government at a prescribed percentage as collection charges. As the Grama Sasan is a body corporate and the Grama Panchayat is its executive authority, the statute enabled the Grama Panchayat by provisions of s. 31 to enter into a contract with the Sti-te Government to collect its taxes and its dues. It 966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. _z95B_ cast no obligatory duty upon the Grama Panchayat _R_ . _B h d_ to collect such taxes or dues of the Government. No _K._ ·~~ ~h~:i provision of the Orissa Act has been placed before us #### _v.:_ v. by which the State Government could order a Grama _Raghunath_ _Misra_ Panchayat to collect its taxes or its dues. :F'urther_••d_ _Others_ more, under cl. (b) to s. 31, a Grama Panchayat is authorized to enter into similar contracts with proprie_**Imam].**_ tors or land holders to collect their rents. The provi· sions of s. 31 militate against the theory that the Grama Panchayat is in the service of the Government. There would be no occasion for such a provision if the Grama Panchayat was in the service of the Government in which case it would have to carry out the orders of the Government to collect its taxes or its dues. Even if on a reasonable construction of the provisions of the Orissa Act it could be held that a Sarpanch of the Grama Panchayat was a person in the service of the Government, it would have to be further held that he was of the class of officers mentioned in s. 123(7)(f). Clause (f), in the first instance, speaks of a person in the service of the Government who is a revenue officer and then further extends the class to village accountants. The words _"such_ _as_ patwaris, lekhpals, talatis, karnams and the like " are merely descriptive of the words "Revenue officers including village accountants". Under cl. (f) it is essential that a person in the service of the Government must be a revenue officer or a village accountant, by whatever name such officer or village accountant may be described. The exclusion of every other village officer from the provisions of cl. (f) compels the conclusion that before this clause can apply to a Sarpauch of the Grama Panchayat under the Orissa Act it must be proved that he is either a revenue officer or a village accountant. The mere fact that under s. 31 of the Orissa Act a Grama Panchayat is enabled to enter into a contract with t.he State Government to collect its taxes or its dues cannot convert a Sarpanch into a revenue officer. No doubt a Grama Panchayat would have to supervise and maintain village and field boundary marks and village records if required to do _r_ ## (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 967 so by the State Government under s. 2l(r) of the _1958_ Orissa Act. In the present case there is no proof that . the Grama Panchayats in question were required to _Ra;a Bahadur_ b th G t It - . 'fi /\. C. _Deo_ _Bhanj_ d o any sue h thmg y [. ] e overnmen . IS s1gm . cant that under s. 54(l)(xiv) of the Orissa Act it is a _Raghun;;h Misra_ choukidar appointed under that Act by the District _and_ _Othm_ Magistrate on whom a statutory duty is cast to keep watch over boundary marks and report to the Grama _Imam_ _J._ Panchayat any loss or damage caused to the boundary marks defining villages. The Grama Panchayat, however, bas not been assigned positively any functions under the Orissa Act }Vhich are discharged by a. revenue officer. The provisions of s. 2l(r) would not by itself convert a Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat into a revenue officer. Similarly, there is no provision of the Orissa Act which shows that a Sarpanch is a village accountant. It had been suggested on behalf of respondent No. 1 that if it could be established that a Sarpanch was a revenue officer or a village accountant, then the very fact that he was such a person made him a person in the serviqe of the Government. It is doubtful whether any such necessary conclusion arises, but there is no need to make further reference to this submission as, in our opinion, a Sarpanch of the Grama Panchayat under the Orissa Act is neither a revenue officer nor a village accountant. It follows, therefore, that in the present case the two essential elements that a Sarpanch must be a person in the service of the Government and that he belongs to the class mentioned in cl. (f) of sub-s. (7) of s. 123 have not been established. Even if one of them had been established and not the other the provisions of s. 123(7) would not apply to such a person. In our opinion, the High Court erred in supposing that because a Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat under the Orissa Act exercised governmental duties he must be regarded as a person in the service of the Government. The High Court did not give any clear finding that a Sarpanch, even if a person in the service of the Government, was either a revenue officer or a village accountant. In our opinion, the provisions of s. 123(7) do not apply to him. Therefore, it cannot be said that _Raja_ _Bahadur_ _/(._ C. _Deo_ _Bhanj_ v. _Raghunath ilfisra_ _and Others_ _Imam]._ _December I9._ 968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. any corrupt practice under s. 123 had been established in the case and the election of the appellant could not be set aside on the only ground on which his election had been set aside by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs and the election petition of respondent No. l is dismissed. _Appeal allowed._ _v._ SETRA VEERA VV _A_ AND OTHERS (JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAs and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) _Hindu_ _Law-Widow_ _in_ _possession_ _of_ _husband's_ _property-_ _Adopted_ _son_ _getting into possession-Adoption invaUd-Wheti}er_ _widow is_ _in_ _constructive possession-•• Property_ _possessed_ _by_ _a_ _female_ _Hindu",_ _Meaning_ _of-Hindu_ _Succession Act,_ r956 _(30_ _of_ ~~ _r956),_ _s._ _I4._ Sub-section (1) of s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, provided : "Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner." GUMMALAPURA TAGGINA MATADA KOTTURUSWAMI A suit instituted by the nearest reversioner of K for a declaration that the adoption made by K's widow was invalid, was dismissed and during the pendency of the appeal filed against the decree dismissing the suit, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force. At the hearing of the appeal the respondent raised the preliminary objection that even if the adoption were held to be invalid, the appellant's suit must fail in view oi _the_ provisions of s. 14 of the Act under which K's widow, who was a party to the suit and the appeal, would be entitled to a full ownership of her husband's properties; while it was urged for the appellant that s. 14 of the Act did not apply to the facts of the case because the properties were not in the possession of K's widow, but were only with the 11dopted son at _the_ time the Act came into force. ' _Held,_ that the word "possession" in s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is, used in the widest connotation and it may be either actual or constructive or iq any form recognised by law. -·