1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, Mr. R.J. Leeds, dated the 26th September 1885, convicting the appellant of three offences under Section 420 of the Penal Code of cheating. These offences relate to three aggregate sums of Rs. 455-4-11, Rs. 297-14 3, and Rs. 323-15-4, constituting a very considerable amount of money, which was improperly paid to other persons inconsequence of misrepresentations made by the accused. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 167 of the Penal Code, but no sentence has been passed upon him in respect of that section. This latter conviction involves the question whether the accused was apublic servant and subject to the responsibilities attaching to that character. It appears that his duties were as follows: He was, and had been for several years, attached to the tahsildar's office at Gorakhpur,--i.e., he was employed at the office without receiving any pay, and was learning the duties performed there by the officials, in the hope and expectation of eventually being taken on the staff, and paid like the other persons employed in the office. It seems to me that it is now too late for the contention to be raised on his behalf that he was not a 'public servant,' within the definition contained in Section 21 of the Penal Code. I am of opinion that any person, whether receiving pay or not, who chooses to take upon himself duties and responsibilities belonging to the position of a public servant, and performs those duties, and accepts those responsibilities, and is recognized as filling the position of a public servant, must be regarded as one, and that it does not lie in his mouth to say subsequently that, notwithstanding his performance of public duties and the recognition by others of such performance, he is not a public servant. If such a contention were allowed, and the question whether a man was a public servant were to depend wholly upon the test of his receiving or not receiving a salary, very great mischief and difficulty might arise in a country like this, where numerous persons are engaged in the performance of public duties without pay. I am therefore of opinion that the appellant must be regarded as coming within the definition of 'public servant.' This disposes of the first objection which has been taken on the appellant's behalf. I will now briefly state the circumstances under which the accused has been convicted. It appears that the military authorities, for purposes of convenience, made an arrangement with the Collector of Gorakhpur, by which the latter should ascertain every month, through the tahsildar's office, what were the current rates in the bazar for grain and other articles of food; and in the ordinary course of business it was the accused's duty to prepare an average list of such rates in Persian, which he had to take to Mr. Augustin, in the Collector's Office, and to read out to him from the Persian list the figures of the rates. From this Mr. Augustin made a list in English for the Collector, who forwarded it to the commanding officer of the regiment, who, upon the basis of the list so prepared, directed payment from time to time to the banias supplying the articles of food required. So that, if by any arrangement with any persons in the bazar the accused chose to make incorrect statements as to the amount of the rates of food to Mr. Augustin, the list prepared by Mr. Augustin upon such statements would necessarily be incorrect also, and this would result in larger suras being paid to the banias than they were entitled to receive. I cannot conceive circumstances more clearly within the meaning of Section 420 of the Penal Code. It has been proved that the Persian list of averages prepared by the accused was correct, and Mr. Augustin has shown that his English list was prepared with reference to the translation of the Persian list given to him by the accused. A comparison of the two documents makes it obvious that the appellant misrepresented the contents of the Persian list, because in Mr. Augustin's list there was a large excess in the alleged prices. The case is overwhelming, and I must dismiss the appeal.