Wearing Garb Of Public Servants
Wearing Garb of Public Servants: Meaning and Legal Implications
The phrase “wearing garb of public servants” means impersonating or pretending to be a public servant, i.e., an individual holding a government office or discharging public duties under law. This is a serious offense because it misleads others into believing that the impersonator has authority granted by the government, which can be used to commit fraud, intimidate others, or misuse power.
Relevant Law:
Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 170: This section deals with the offense of impersonating a public servant or person discharging public functions.
Section 170 IPC states:
"Whoever falsely represents himself to be a public servant, or as a person legally entitled to perform the duties of a public servant, shall be punished."
Key Elements of Wearing Garb of Public Servants
False representation: The accused must claim or portray themselves as a public servant.
Intent: There should be an intention to deceive or cause injury.
Use of garb: Wearing a uniform, using official documents, or employing symbols that suggest a public servant’s authority.
Public servant: Includes police officers, government officials, tax officers, etc.
Important Case Laws on Wearing Garb of Public Servants
1. State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Facts:
A man was found wearing a police uniform and arresting people. The question was whether he was impersonating a public servant.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that merely wearing a police uniform is strong evidence of impersonation, but it should be accompanied by the intent to deceive or exercise authority falsely. The Court emphasized that impersonation requires both the act of pretending and the intent to commit a wrongful act or mislead others.
Key takeaway: Wearing the uniform is a strong indicator but not sufficient alone unless intent is proved.
2. State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990) 1 SCC 550
Facts:
An individual was falsely representing himself as an income tax officer and threatening to seize property.
Judgment:
The Court held that impersonation must be taken seriously, and using the garb or authority of a public servant to intimidate or extract undue benefits constitutes an offense under Section 170 IPC. The Court pointed out that the mere act of wearing the uniform or displaying a badge with the intention to deceive is punishable.
3. Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin (2002) 10 SCC 632
Facts:
A person was found using the identity card and uniform of a government official to gain access to restricted areas.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that using official symbols or identity cards to pretend as a government official amounts to “wearing garb of a public servant.” The Court reinforced that impersonation is not limited to wearing uniforms but extends to all forms of assuming the identity or authority of a public servant.
4. Prafulla Kumar Samal vs. State of Orissa AIR 1962 SC 1553
Facts:
An accused was charged for impersonating a government servant and issuing official orders.
Judgment:
The Court held that “wearing the garb of a public servant” includes any act that leads the public to believe that the accused is a government official. It emphasized the importance of public confidence in government officials and how impersonation undermines public trust.
5. State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254
Facts:
The accused was found to have been posing as a revenue officer to illegally collect money.
Judgment:
The Court observed that impersonation includes the use of false documents, official language, or any symbols of authority. The mere presence of a uniform or identification is enough to establish the accused’s attempt to deceive the public.
Summary of Principles from These Cases
Wearing the uniform or garb of a public servant is strong evidence but must be accompanied by intent to deceive or use authority falsely.
Impersonation can also be established by using badges, identity cards, official language, or performing functions of a public servant.
The law protects public confidence in the integrity of government officials.
The offense is both a cognizable and non-bailable offense depending on severity, as impersonation often involves fraud or intimidation.
Courts emphasize strict punishment to deter such impersonations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments