# SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) R.G.JACOB v. UNION OF INDIA

- **Citation:** [1963] 3 S.C.R. 800
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960-12-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1961
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. C. Das Gupta, Ragrubar Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supreme-court-reports-1963-r-g-jacob-v-union-of-india-2676
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

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 intention 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.

## Text

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 intention 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 memorandum of appeal was sent by registered post to
Rangaswamy, the Joint Chief Controller. The same
day Arumugam saw the Deputy Superintendent,
Special Police E;tablishment, and
gave him a
complaint in writing mentioning all the facts. A trap
was thereafter laid with a view
to catch
the
appellant in the actual aot of acc;pting the bribe.
On the evening of April 3, 1958, Arumugam went
to the house of the appellant with two cement bags
which
had
been
marked
by
putting
attested oards inside the bags and Rs. 50/·
in currency notes the numb11r of which were noted
by the Duputy Superintendent of Police. The appel·
!ant accepted the cement bags and the money from
Arumugam, The two cement bags were put in a,
room of the building as directed by the appellant.
Immediately after this the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, who had been waiting according to the
arrangement a little distance away from the house
came into the hause on getting the pre-arranged
signal from Arumugam. He revealed his identity to
the appellant and asked him to produce the money
and cement bags. Tlte aooused then took him upstairs and opened an Almirah with his own keys
' ....
·•
y
~·
3S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
803
and produced from inside the Almirah the very
notes of which the number had been taken by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police. The cement bags
with the marks inside were also found down-stairs.
The acoused pleaded not guilty. He admits
the recovery of the cement bags and the currenoy
notes from his house but pleads that neither of these
have been given to him and that the notes were
found on the table and the cement bags were in the
hall nearby; and these had.been kept in his house
without his knowledge or consent by Arumugam
who wanted to make up a false case against him.
According to him the whole story of his being approached by Arumugam or his al!king for cement
bags or money, or acoepting them, is entirely false.
The Special Judge as also the High Court
accepted the proseoution evidence in these matters
as true and rejected the defence version and
Mr. Kumaramangalam has rightly not tried to
challenge before us the findings of facts. His principal contention in support of the appeal is that
assuming the findings to be true, an o{fence under
s. 165, Indian Penal Code had not been established.
This contention is based mainly on the fact that
the appellaut was Assistant Contro11'3r of Imports
only and had no connection with the issue of export
permits. According to the learned Counsel he was
not therefore "subordinate" to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to whom the appeal
petition had been filed and consequently his acceptance of cement bags from Arumugam did not
amount to an offence under section 165 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Section 165 of the Indian
Penal Code runs thus:-
'1165. Whoever, being a public servant,
accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or
attempts to obtain, for himself or for any
l96!
B, C. Jacob
v.
Union of lndia
.Da• Gupt• J.
1962
R. C. J•cob
v.
Union t1f India
Dar G.pt.i J,
804
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
other person, any valuable thing without
consideration, or for a consideration which
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 such public servant, or having any
connection with the official functions of him·
self or of any public servant to whom he is
subordnate, or from any person whom he
knows to be interested in or related to the
person so concerned shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
whioh may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both."
What has been proved in this case is ; (I) that
the appellant, a public servant, accepted
some
valuable things from Arumugam without consideration.
(2) Arumugam was concerned in an appeal
against an order rejecting an application for export
licence.
(3)
this
proceeding
had
connection
with
the official functions of the Joint Chief
Controller · of Imports and Exports
who was
a public servant. (4) The appellant knew that
Arumngam was concerned in this proceeding having connection with the official function of the Joint
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. (5) The
appellant
was in respect of his official position
subordinate to t.he Joint Chief Controller of Imports
and Exports. It may be mentioned that it is not
disputed that at the relevant time, viz., March, 1958,
the accused was the Assistant Controller of Imports
only and had nothing to do with export permits.
All the ingredients of an offence under s.165,
Indian Penal Code, appear therefore to have been
proved prima facie.
Mr.
Kmaramangalam's
contention is that the fifth fact mentioned above,
viz.,
that the appellant was in respect of his
. "
..
.....
,_
.,..
'
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
805
official position "subordinate" to the Joint Chief
Controller of Imports and Export is not sufficient
to establish his "subordination" to the Joint Chief
Controller of Imports and Exports within the
meaning of s. 165.
Subordination of public servants to other
public servants is a well
known and inevitable
feature of public administration.
And, when a
question arises in any case whether a public 'servant A is a subordinate to public servant B it
presents little difficulty. Thus, in that branch of
the State's public administration which dealswith regulation of Imports into and exports from India, one
would state without difficulty that an Assistant Con·
troller of Imports is "subordinate" to the Joint
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports; so also
the Assistant Controller of Exports is subordinate
to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports; but the Assistant Controller of Exports is
not subordinate
to
the Assistant Controller of
Imports; nor is the Assistant Controller of Import
subordinate to the Al!lsistant Controller of Exports.
According to the learned Counsel, in s. 165 the
word ''subordinate"
should be
interpreted as
''functionally subordinate".
He contends that
while the appellant was administratively subordi·
nate to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and
Exports he was not '•functionally subordinate" to
that officer; as Assistant Controller of Imports,
he had nothing to do with the matter of appeal
against the rejection of the application for exports,
so, he was not ''subordinate" to the Joint Chief
Controller, within the meaning of the section.
The use of the words "functionally subordi·
nate" does not appear to be very happy; as in
every case of administrative subordination there
is also subordination in respect of some functions
a.t least. What the learned Counsel reaUy means
1962
ll • a.-:;-;;; b
. \'.
Union oj India
--
Da, GuplaJ.
1962
R. C. Jm6
Yo
, Union of Inti•
D11 flupto J.
806
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963]
by his argument i9 that "subordinate" in the section means ''subordinate in respect of those very
official functions with which the business or tr&n•
eaotion has connection." In support of his arguments he has drawn our attention to the provisions
of s.
161, s. 162 and s. 163 of the Indian Penal
Code and he points out that s. 161 makes punishable the taking by a public servant of gratification in respect of his officials act or his official
functions; s. 162 makes punishable the taking of
gratification
by any person for inducing by
corrupt or illegal means a public servant to do or
not to do some thing in connection with his official
functions; s. 163 makes punishable the taking of
gratification by any
person for inducing by the
exercise of personal influence a public servent to
do or not to do something in connection with his
officials function. Section 164 it may be mentioned makes punishable the abetment of offences
under s. 162 and 163. In this context, the learned
Counsel argues, the words in s. 165 should be so
interpreted as to make punishable only such taking of gratification by a public servant as has in
some way connection with his own official functions,
and so he argues "subordinate" in the section should
be interpreted as suggested by him. To a emphasise
his point he gave this illustration , X the Collector
of a District is dealing with a matter of assessment
of revenue on A's applicat10n. Y a office Peon of
a department under the Collector which has nothing
to do with revenue matters accepts money from A
knowing that A has such business with X; Y will
then be committing an offence under s. 165 even
though Y has no connection whatsoever with the
functions of X in rl'spect of A's application.
It will perhaps not often happen that Y will
have an opportunity of accepting money from A
.....
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
807
when he has not even a plausible chance of doing
something for A in connection with the application.
But, assuming that he has that opportunity and
does accept the money as stated in the illustration
above, we cannot see what untoward consequences
will ensue if Y's conduct is ma.de punishable under
s. 165. It has to be noticed that s. 165 has been so
worded as to cover cases of corruption which do
not come withins. 161 <>rs. 162 ors. 163. When
with that intention the legislature has used the word
''subordinate" ins. 165 without any limitation there
is no justification for reading into the word the
limitation suggested by the learned Counsel by the
words "in respect of those very functions". It is
plain that the inter-preta.tion suggested by Mr.
Kumaramangalam needs the addition of some words
in the section, and that is clearly not
per~issible.
By the use of the word "subordinate" without any
qualifying words, the legislature has expressed its
legislative intention of making punishable such subordinates also who have no connection with the
function with which the business or transaction is
concerned. To limit the meaning of "subordinate"
in the section as suggested by the learned Counsel
would be defeating that legislative intention and
laying down a different le.gislative policy.
This the
Court has no power to do. The argument that
"subordinate'' means something more than "administrn.tively subordinate" must therefore be rejected.
The appellant has therefore rightly been held to be
"subordinate" to the Joint Chief Controller, even
though the appellant had no functions to discharge
in connection with the appeal before the Joint
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.
Mr. Kumaramangala.m then wanted to argue
-·i
that the facts and ciscumstances of the case showed
that Arumugam was a police informer and that he
was really not concerned in the appeal before the
v.
'Union of lnrli•
· 'Das Gupla J,
R. G. Jaeob
v.
Union of India
Da• GuptaJ.
868
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l963j
Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.
Therefore, he points out, it would be reasonable to
hold that no offence under s. 165 had been committed by his client.
We find however that the High
Gourt granted the certificate only on the ground that
the question raised by the Counsel as regards the
interpretation of the word "subordinate" in the
seotion was a substantial question of law, which
was not covered by any specific authority and was
also a question of public importance. In view of
this we do not think it right to
investigate the
further question
sought to
be
raisetl by Mr.
Kumaramangalam in this case and we have not
allowed him to argue that matter.
We think it proper to add that we have not
been able to appreciate why the High Court thought
it necessary to reduce the sentence imposed by the
Trial Court.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
•
.
<