R.G. JACOB versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 800 · Decided: 28-08-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
August 28. 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) 
R.G.JACOB 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
RAGRUBAR DAYAL. JJ.) 
Cirminal Trial-Public Servant accepting valuable things 
for securing export 
permit-'Subord-inate', Meaning of-If 
means functionally subordinate--Inrlian Penal Code, 1860 
(Act 45 of 1860), s. 165. 
The word 'subordinate' used without any qualification 
in;s. 165 of the Indian Penal Code indicates that the Legis· 
lature intended to include within its ambit also such subor· 
dinates as had no connection with the functions with which 
the proceeding or business was concerned. 
That word cannot 
be read as •functionally subordinate' so as to defeat the inten-
tion and policy of the Legislature. 
Consequently, where an Assistant Controller of Imports 
was prosecued for accepting valuable things for helping an 
applicant, who had appealed to the Joint Chief Controller of 
Imports and Exports, to secure a permit to export goods and 
was convicted under s. 165 of the Indian Penal Code by the 
special Judge and such conviction was affirmed by the High 
Court and the contention on appeal to this Court was that, 
although the appellant might be administratively subordinate 
to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, he was 
not functionally so, having nothing to do with export permits, 
and was not, therefore, liable under the section. 
Held, that the appellant was subordinate to the Joint 
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports within foe meaning 
of the section and had been rightly convicted. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 116 of 1961. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
December 14, 1960 of the Madras High Court ill 
..... 
Qriminal Appeal No. 933 of lp591 
'r-
.· 
• 
~ 
" ' 
3 s.C.:R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
soi 
S. Mohan Kumar Mangalam, R. Ganapatky 
Iyer and G. Gopalakriskan, for the appellant. 
0. K. Daphtary Solicitor General of India, D, 
R. Prem, R. N. Sacktkey and P. D. Menon, for the 
respondent. 
1962. August 28. The Judgement of the Court 
was delivered by 
DAS GUPTA, J. -The appellant who was the 
Assistant Controller of Imports in the office of the 
Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, 
Madras, was tried by the Special judge, Madras:on 
three charges-one under section 161 of the Indian 
Penal Code, another under s. 5 (1) (d) read with s. 5 
(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the 
third-which was added later-under s. 165 of the 
Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted of the first 
two charges but was convicted of an offence under 
s. 165 of the·Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 
rigorous imprisonment for one year. He appealed to 
the High Court of Madras; but the High Court 
dismissed the appeal ia.nd affirmed the order of 
conviction, but reduced the sentence to that of fine 
of Rs. 400/-in default rigorous imprisonment for 
three months. The High Court has however granted 
a certificate under Artticle 134 (1) (c) of the oonsti· 
tution that this was a fit case for appeal to this 
Court. On the basis of that certificate this appeal 
has been filed. 
This prosecution case is that one K. R. Naidu 
(who has been el.:amined as prosecution witness No. 
8) a merchant having export buainess in onions, 
chillies and groundnuts made on January 21, 1958, 
an application for export of chillies. He was infor. 
med by a letter dated March 5, 1958, that the 
application had been rejected. This letter was 
purported to be signed by the Ass~stant Controller 
1961 
8• c, Jacob 
v. 
Union of India 
Das Gupta J. 
1961 
R· C. Jaco'J 
' .. 
Un/on of India 
Das Gupt1 J, 
802 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] 
of Exports for the the Joint Chief Con trol!er of 
Imports and Eirports. Arumugam (prosecution 
witness No. 1) who had been aoting on behalf of 
Naidu in this matter then sought the assiatanoe of 
this appellant for getting a permit for Naidu. When 
he met the appellant fater the same evening the 
appellant told him that an appeal would have to be 
preferred against the rejection order to the Joint 
Uhief Controller of Imports and Exports, Rangasw· 
amy. The appellant also proposed that if he was 
given two bags of oement and Rs. 50/·he would use 
his influence and help him to get him the permit. 
Arnmugam agreed and the appellant gave Arumugam 
a sheet of pa per stating the address to which the 
cement was to be sent. On the next day the memo-
randum of appeal was sent by registered post to 
Rangaswamy, the Joint Chief C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.