05.04.2013 Views

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

DECISION - 58<br />

275<br />

165 I.P.C. (corresponding to sec. 11 of P.C. Act,<br />

1988) even though he has no function to discharge<br />

in connection with the appeal.<br />

R.G. Jocab vs. Republic of India,<br />

AIR 1963 SC 550<br />

The appellant, who was the Assistant Controller of Imports<br />

in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports,<br />

Madras was tried by the Special Judge, Madras on three charges,<br />

under section 161 I.P.C., 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the<br />

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 165 I.P.C.<br />

(corresponding to secs. 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), 11 of P.C. Act,<br />

1988 respectively). He was acquitted of the first two charges but was<br />

convicted of an offence under section 165 I.P.C. and sentenced to<br />

R.I. for one year. The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed<br />

the order of conviction but reduced the sentence to that of fine of<br />

Rs.400.<br />

The prosecution case is that the appellant demanded and<br />

accepted two cement bags and Rs.50 from a merchant promising to<br />

use his influence and help him to get him an export permit. The<br />

Special Judge as also the High Court accepted the prosecution<br />

evidence as true and rejected the defence version and the appellant<br />

has not challenged before the Supreme Court the findings of facts.<br />

The contention is based mainly on the fact that the appellant was<br />

Assistant Controller of Imports and had no connection with the issue<br />

of export permits and that he was not subordinate to the Joint Chief<br />

Controller of Imports and Exports to whom the appeal petition had<br />

been filed and consequently his acceptance of the cement bags and<br />

the money did not amount to an offence under section 165 I.P.C.<br />

The Supreme Court held that administrative subordination<br />

is sufficient, that section 165 I.P.C. has been so worded as to cover<br />

cases of corruption which do not come within section 161 or section<br />

162 or section 163 I.P.C. and that by using the word “subordinate”<br />

without any qualifying words, the legislature has expressed intention<br />

of making punishable such subordinates also who have no connection<br />

with the functions with which the business or transaction is concerned

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!