DHANESHWAR NARAIN SAXENA versus THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Citation: [1962] 3 S.C.R. 259 · Decided: 24-08-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

3S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
259 
Act must follow. 
Such a law is not capable of 
being called in question on the ground that it 
abridges any fundamental right conferred by 
Arts.14 19 and 31, if it has been assented to by the 
Preside~t. The notification was thus valid, if the 
law was valid. 
In the result, the appeals fail, and are dis· 
missed with costs, one set only. 
Appeals dismissed. 
DHANESHW AR NARAIN SAXENA 
v. 
THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J.,'S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, 
N. RAJAGOPALAAYYANGAR andJ.R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption-Public servant-Misconduct, not in 
the discharge of one's duty-Corrupting other public servant--
Criminal Misconduct-Ingredients 
of 
offence-Prevention of 
Cor1'uption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947), ss. 5 (1) (d), ti (1) (d). 
The appellant who was an Upper Division Clerk in the 
office of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi was convicted of an 
offence under s. 5 (1) ( d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1947, punishable under s. 5 (2) of the Act. The prosecution case 
was that R who was anxious to obtain a licente for a double· 
barralled shot-gun sought the assistance of the appellant who 
knew him, that the appellant who had nothing to do with the 
issuing of licences for firearms which was done by the office of 
the Deputy Commissioner, offered to use his good offices in ex-
pediting and furthering the progress of R's application for a 
licence in the appropriate department if he was paid Rs. 2501-, 
and that when the licence was cancelled on its being found that 
R was not entitled to it the appellant promised to have it restored 
if he was paid a further sum of Rs. 180/-. The trial Judge found 
that the appellant taking advantage of his position as an em-
ployee in the Chief Commissioner's office and of R's ignorance 
and anxiety to get the licence, had induced him to part with 
the money on the promise that he would get his licence restored. 
The appellant pleaded that on the facts found no offence under 
s. 5( 1) ( d) of the Act had been made out and relied on State o/ 
Ajmer v. Shivji Lal, (1959) Supp. 2 S. C. R. 739. 
1961 
A1 ahant Sankarshan 
Ramanuja Das 
Goswami Etc. FJtc 
Etv. 
v. 
The State of Oriasa 
Hidayatullah J. 
1961 
August 24. 
.. 
19fJ1 
DhaneBhwar 
Naraitt Saxena '_ 
v: 
' ' 
260; 
~SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS 
(1962] 
. ·Held, that in order to constitute an offence under cl. ( d) 
of s. 5 (I) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7, it is not 
necCssary, that the public servant in question, while misconduct·. 
ing himself, should have done so in the discharge of his duty; 
TM Delhi 
Adlniniatration. , and .that the decision in State oJAjmer v. Shivji Lal. (1959) 
Supp. 2 S: C. R. 739, to the contrary, is wrong. · · 
Sinha C. J. 
If a public. servant takes money from a third perwn, by 
- corrupt or illegal means or otherwise -abusing his ufficial posi-
tion,. in 
order 
to 
c;:orrupt 
some other public.· servant, 
· he commits an offence under s. 5 (I) (d), 
even 
though 
there was no question of his misconducting hitnself in the dis-
. charge of his own duty; 
· 
· CruMINAL APPELLATE Jun1snwnoN : Criminal 
Appeal No. 6 of 1959. 
. 
AppeaLby speciaUeave Jrom:..the judgment and 
order dated the February 4, 1957, ofthe Punjab 
. High. Court. (Circuit Bench) at . Delhi. in Criminal 
Appeal No. 173-C of 1956. '' • · 
' 
. 
T. o: 1llathur, p; 0. Mathur and A. N. G0yal, for 
the Appellants. 
. .. 
, , · 
. B. K. Khanna, and T. M. Sen; for the Respon-
dents. i · 
· 
· 
· .dl~6h~dugust,24. ~The_Judgment,ofthe Court 
was elivere . by 
.. . 
. 
. 
. 
. · 
, 
· ., SiNnl, C. J.-·· This'ajipeai' was fir~t .heard by 
a Division Bench of three-judges, composed of the 
. Chief Justice, Imam and Shah, JJ., on the· 19th of 
•February last year.'" In the course of the ·argument, 
the learned counsel for · the ·a pp&llant invited ·the 
· ·attentfon of'the Court to the decision.of a Division 
. Bench-.of.·this. Comt,:.in ··.the ,State of '.Ajmerv. 
· ,, Shivji Lal (1) •. '.Ihe·Bench hearing the case, being 
of. opinion that the decision aforesaid of this Court 
'. 'required reconsideration, referred the·'case ·to a 
', .. larger bench; and' that is how it has come before "!ls. 
-.·.:c 
•. 'It is necessary ~o· state the' following facts in 
~ ·order to' bring out tlie question offaw to' be. de.ter-
:i; milled in)his case.' Th~ . appellant was an' upper -
.Division ,Clerk in. the office ;of the. Chief Com-
\• missioner ·of Delhi'· He " had· ·.come · · to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.