minal Appeal No 155 of 1961
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order date April 10 1961 of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal No 143 of 1960
B R L Iyengar and T section Venkataraman for the appellant
V Narayana Menon and Sardar Bahadur for
the respondent
December 5
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO J
This appeal by special leave is preferred against the Judgment of the High Court of Kerala confirming that of the Special judge Trivandrum convicting the accused under section 52 read with section 51d of the Prevention of Corruption Act 19472 of 1947 hereafter called the Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs 10001  or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months
The appellant was a Special Revenue Inspector for land assignment at Manantoddy in Wynad Taluk in the old Malabar district
726 The case of the prosecution was that he by abusing his position as a public servant got 4 acres and 80 cents of Government land in R section No 3762 of Tavinhal village assigned in the name of his brother in law P V Gopinathan Nambiar without revealing the fact that he was his brother in law and by making false entries in the relevant records showing that the said land contained only 97 trees valued at Rs 165  whereas the land had actually 150 trees worth Rs 1450 
The suppression of the fact that the assignee was his brother in law and the underestimate of the value of the land were dishonestly made to circumvent the rules governing the assignment of lands to landless poor
The Special judge and on appeal the High Court held that the appellant dishonestly underestimated the extent and the value of the trees in the said land with a view to help his brother in law and thereby committed an offence under section 52 read with section 14 of the Act
Hence the appeal
Learned counsel for the appellant raised before us 2 points  1 Section 51a of the Act does not apply to a case of wrongful loss caused to Government by a public servant who by deceit induced it to part with its property  2 The High Court acted erroneously in relying upon a report dated April 5 1961 made by the district Forest Officer Kozhikode filed by the public prosecutor after the appeal was reserved for judgment without giving an opportunity to the appellant to file objections thereto or contesting the correctness of the valuation given therein
As the first contention turns upon the provisions of section 51 it will be convenient to read the same 5
1 A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duty a if he habitually accepts or obtains or 727 agrees to accepts to obtain from any person for himself if or for any other person gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 161 of the Indian Penal Code or b if he habitually accepts or obtains or  agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been or to be or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted
by him or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate or From any  person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned of c if he dishonestly or fraudulently mis appropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do or d if he by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any Valuable thing or pecuniary advan tage
We are concerned in this case with 51d of the act Under that clause it a public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant obtains for himself or for any other person valuable thing or pecuniary advantage he will be guilty of Criminal misconduct punishable under section 52 of the Act with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine
728 The learned counsel contends that clause d being a penal provision shall be strictly construed and that if so construed it would only take in cases of direct benefit obtained by a public servant for himself or for any other person from a third party in the manner described therein and does not cover a case of a wrongful loss caused to the Government by abuse of his power
This conclusion the argument proceeds flows from three circumstances
1 The benefit obtained in clause b must be similar to that provided for in clauses a  b 14 e benefit obtained from a third party 2 The case of wrongful loss to the Government is provided by clause c and any other loss which does not fall within that clause is outside the scope of the section 3 Though the word obtains  has a wide meaning in the setting in which it appears in clause d but in view of the fact that the same word used in a limited sense in is used in a limited sense in clauses a  b it should be given a limited meaning namely gets a benefit from a third party
It takes colour from the same word used in clauses a  b
He finally contends that the construction he is seeking to put forward for our acceptance fits in the general scope and scheme of the Act and that the Legislature intended to leave the losses caused to the Government by the deception caused by its public servant to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or other appropriate laws
At the outset we may say that the argument is rather subtle but on a deeper scrutiny of the provisions and the clear phraseology used therein we find that the contention is not sound
Before we construe the relevant provisions of the section in the light of the criticism levelled by the learned counsel it will be useful and convenient to know briefly the scope and the object of the Act
The long title of the Act reads 729 An Act for the more effective prevention of bribery and corruption 
The preamble indicates that the Act was passed as it was expedient to make more effective provision for the prevention of bribery and corruption
The long title as well as the preamble indicate that the Act was passed to put down the said social evil i e bribery and corruption by public servant
Bribery is a form of corruption
The fact that in addition to the word bribery the word  corruption is used shows that the legislation was intended to combat also other evils in addition to bribery
The existing law ie Penal Code was found insufficient to eradicate or even to control the growing evil of bribery and corruption corroding the public service of our country
The provisions broadly include the existing offences under sections 161  165 of the Indian Penal Code committed by public servants and enact a new rule of presumptive evidence against the accused
The Act also creates a new offence of criminal misconduct by public servants though to some extent it overlaps on the pre existing offences and enacts a rebuttable presumption contrary to the well known principles of Criminal Jurisprudence
It also aims to protect honest public servants from harassment by prescribing that the investigation against them could be made only by police officials of particular status and by making the sanction of the Government or other appropriate officer a precondition for their prosecution
As it is a socially useful measure conceived in public interest it should be liberally construed so as to bring about the desired object
ie to prevent corruption among public servants and to prevent harassment of the honest among them
A decision of the judicial Committee in Dyke vs Elliot 1 cited by the learned counsel as an aid for construction neatly states the principle and therefore may be extracted  Lord justice James speaking 1 1872 L R 191
730 for the Board observes at P 191 No doubt all penal Statutes are to be construed strictly that is to say the Court must see that the thing charged as an offence is within the plain meaning of the words used and must not strain the words on any notion that there has been a slip that there has been a casus omissus that the thing is so clearly within the mischief that it must have been intended to be included and would have been included if thought of
On the other hand the person charged has a right to say that the thing charged although within the Words is not within the spirit of the enactment
But where the thing is brought within the words and within the spirit there a penal
enactment to be construed like any other instrument according to the fair common sense meaning of the language used and the Court is not to find or make any doubt or ambiguity in the language of a penal statute where such doubt or ambiguity would clearly not be found or made in the same language in any other instrument
 In our view this passage if we may say so restates the rule of construction of a penal provision from A correct perspective
As we will presently show the case of the appellant on the facts found clearly falls not only within the words of clause d but also within its spirit
Indeed if his argument be accepted not only we will be doing violence to the language but also to the spirit of the enactment
First taking the phraseology used inthe clause the case of a public servantcausing wrongful loss to the Government be benefiting a thirdparty squarely falls within it
Let us look at the clause by otherwise abusing the position of a public servant  for the argument mainly turns upon the said clause
The phraseology is very comprehensive
It covers acts done  otherwise than by corrupt or illegal means by an officer 731 abusing his position
The gist of the offence under this clause is that a public  officer abusing his position as _a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage
Abuse means misuse 1
e using his position for something for which it is not intended That abuse may be by
corrupt or illegal means or otherwise than those means
The word otherwise  has wide connotation and if no limitation is placed on it the words corrupt illegal  and otherwise  mentioned in the clause become surplusage for on that construction every abuse of position is gathered by the clause
So some limitation will have to
be put on that word and that limitation is that it takes colour from the preceding words along with which it appears in the clause that is to say something savouring of dishonest act on his part
The contention of the learned counsel that if the clause is widely construed even a recommendation made by a public servant for securing a job for another may come within the Clause and that could not have been the intention of the Legislature
But in our view such innocuous acts will not be covered by the said clause
The juxtaposition of the word or otherwise  with the words corrupt or illegal means and the dishonesty implicit in the word  abuse indicate the necessity for a dishonest intention on his part to bring him within the meaning of the clause
Whether he abused his position or not depends upon the facts of each case nor can the word obtains  be sought in aid to limit the express words of the section Obtain  means acquire or get
If a corrupt officer by the said means obtains a valuable thing or a pecuniary advantage he can certainly be said to obtain the said thing or a pecuniary advantage but it is said that in clauses   c the same word is used and in the context of those clauses it can only mean getting from a third party other than the Government and therefore the game meaning must be given to the said word in clause d
Obtains  in clause 732 a  b in the context of those provisions may mean taking a bribe from a third party but there is no reason why the same meaning shall be given to that word used in a different context when that word is comprehensive enough to fit in the scheme of that provision
Nor can we agree that as dishonest misappropriation has been c the other cases of wrongful loss caused Government by the deceit practiced by a public officer should fall outside the section
There is no reason why when a comprehensive statute was passed to prevent corruption this particular category of corruption should have been excluded therefrom because the consequences of such acts are equally harmful to the public as acts of bribery
On a plain reading of the express words used in the clause we have no doubt that every benefit obtained by a public servant for himself or for any other person by abusing his position as a public servant falls within the mischief of the said clause
Coming to the spirit of the provision there cannot be two views
As we have expressed earlier the object of the Act was to make more effective provision for the prevention of bribery and corruption
Bribery means the conferring of benefit by one upon another in cash or in kind to procure an illegal or dishonest action in favour of the giver
Corruption includes bribery but has a wider connotation
It may take in the use of all kind of corrupt practices
The Act
was brought in to purify public administration
When the Legislature used comprehensive terminology in section 51d to achieve the said purpose it would be appropriate not to limit the content by construction when particularly the sipirit of the statute is in accord With the words used therein Two decisions of this court cited at the Bar indicate that a wide construction was placed by this Court  on the provisions of section 51d of the Act
733 In Ram Krishan vs The State of Delhi 1 the appellants were prosecuted for offering bribe to a Railway Officer for hushing up the case against them
In that context section 5 1d was construed by this court
At p 188 Chandrasekhara Ayyar J speaking for the court made the following observation Apart from corrupt and illegal means  we have also the words or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant
If a man obtains a pecuniary advantage by the abuse of his position he will be guilty under sub clause d
Sections 161 162  163 refer to a motive or a reward for doing or forbearing to do something showing favour or disfavour to any person or for inducing such conduct by the exercise of personal influence
It is not necessary for an offence under clause d to prove all this
It is enough if by abusing his position as a public servant a man obtains for himself any pecuniary advantage entirely irrespective of motive or reward for showing favour or disfavour This Court again in Dhaneshwar Narain Saxena vs The Delhi Administration
2 pointed the wide net cast by this provision in order to put down corruption
There the appellant was an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi
He knew one Ram Nara who was a fireman serving in Delhi FireBrigade The latter sought the assistance of the aappellant who had nothing to do with the issuing of licences of fire arms which was done by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner Delhi
The appellant took a bribe in order to get the licence for him
It was argued that as it was not the duty of the appellant to issue licences or do something in connection therewith he did not commit any offence within the meaning of section 5 1d of the Act
This 1  2  734 Court rejected his contention
Sinha CJ speaking for the Court observed at p 198 The legislature advisedly widened the scope of the crime by giving a who holding public office and taking advantage of their position obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage
 The observations made by this Court in the above two cases though made in a different context show the comprehensive nature of the said provision
We therefore hold that the accused in order to assign the land to his brother in law underestimated the value of the said land to conform with the rules and thereby abused his position as a public servant and obtained for him a valuable thing or a pecuniary advantage within the meaning of the said clause and therefore is guilty of an offence under sub
section
2 thereof
It is next contended that the said finding was vitiated by the fact that the High Court in arriving at the finding relied upon a valuation list prepared by the District Forest Officer and filed into court without giving an opportunity to the appellant to canvass its correctness 
The admitted facts relevant to the argument may be stated
The arguments in the appeal were concluded on March 22 1961
On April 6 1961 the Public Prosecutor filed a Valuation list purporting to have been made by the District Forest Officer Kozhikode
No notice of this list was given to the appellant and therefore he did not file any objections
On April 10 1961 the High Court delivered the judgment basing its finding on the said Valuation list and rejecting the appeal
Before the Special Leave was granted by this court a report was called for from the High Court with regard to the said facts
The report sent by the Registrar is as follows  The learned Counsel for the appellant contended before the High Court that the 735 method of calculation adopted by PW 15 in assessing the value of the timber was not correct and that the following method should have been adopted viz in the case of timber trees to calculate the value of each tree at the rate given in the Madras Forest Manual for that particular species and for fuel trees to calculate the value at the official rate for cart load fixed by the Government  Thereupon the Court directed in open court that a statement showing the value of the timber calculated by the above method may be submitted by either of the parties
No statement was filled by the appellant s ounsel and on 6 4 1961 the State filed a statement
Since the statement was meant only to assist the Court in calculating the correct value of the timber along the lines suggested by the appellant s counsel the matter was not posted for further argument
 The appellant denied in his affidavit filed before us that any direction was given by the court before the judgment was reserved but the Public Prosecutor filed an affidavit to the effect that such a statement was made in the open court
We have no reason to reject the report of the Registrar and the affidavit filed by the Public Prosecutor
Even so the fact remains that the learned judge acted upon a document filed by the respondent without given an opportunity to the appellant to file objections or to contest its reliability
We think the principles of natural justice require that no court shall give a finding whether on fact or law and particularly on facts without giving an opportunity to all the contesting parties
As that principle has been violated in this case we have no option but to set aside the finding of the learned judge on the question of the valuation of the trees on the plot assigned to the appellant s brother in law
We therefore set aside 736 this finding and request the High Court to submit a revised finding on the said question within two months from the receipt of the record
The respondent may file a further statement if I e so chooses to explain or even to correct the valuation list already filed by it
Thereafter an opportunity will be given to the appellant to file his objections
The objections filed by the appellant in this Court may be also considered by the High Court
The High Court will submit the finding on the evidence already on record including the said objections and statements
The parties may file objections to the finding within two weeks from the date the said And is received
The appeal will be posted as early as possible after objections are filed or after the expiry of the time given for filing the objections
Case remitted for submission of fresh finding


Summary:
The appellant was convicted under s51dof the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 on the ground that by abusing his position as a public servant he obtained an assignment of Government land in the name of his brother in law without revealing the relationship and by undervaluing the trees standing on the land
The High Court on appeal directed that a statement showing the value of the timber calculated on the basis contended by the appellant may be submitted by either of the parties
The appellant did not file any statement but a statement was filed on behalf of the prosecution
The High Court without giving an opportunity to the appellant to file objections to the correctness of the report and the reliability of the statement filed by the prosecution relied upon the statement to come to the conclusion that there had been an under valuation by the appellant
It was contended that section 51 d did not apply to the case and that before the High Court there had been a failure of natural justice
Held that a penal statute must be construed strictly and only such thing are offences as come within not merely the letter but also the spirit of the statute
Dyke vs Elliot  referred to
Held further that considering the object and scope of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 the expression otherwise  in section 51 d is employed to bring in every abuse of official position by a public servant
But the juxtaposition of the word otherwise with the words corrupt  or illegal means  and the fact that dishonesty is implicit in the word abuse  indicate the necessity for a dishonest intention as an ingredient of the offence and innocuous acts will not be covered by the said clause
725 Held further that the spirit of the Act which
is in accord with the words used therein is to take in every form of corruption and the facts in the instant case if established constitute an offence under
vs 51d
Ram Krishna vs State Of Delhi  and Dhaneshwar Narain Saxena vs Delhi Administration   referred to
Held also that before the High Court there had been violation of the principles of natural justice and that the matter had to go back to the High Court for the appellant being given an opportunity to meet the material put in by the prosecution before the High Court