S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, should be interpreted broadly to include cases where a public servant abuses his position to obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or another person, even if the benefit is obtained by deceit and results in a wrongful loss to the Government.

Judgment

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 S. 5(2), read with S.5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), hereafter called the Act, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

2. The appellant was a special Revenue Inspector for land assignment at Manantoddy in Wynad Taluk in the old Malabar district.

3. 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. S. No. 376/2 of Tavinhal village assigned in the name of his brother-in-law P. K. Copinathan Nambair 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 under-estimate of the value of the land were dishonestly made to circumvent the rules governing the assignment of lands to landless poor.

4. The Special Judge and on appeal the High Court held that the appellant dishonestly under-estimated the extent and the value of the frees in the said land with a view to help his brother-in-law and thereby committed an offence under S. 5(2), read with S. 1 (4) (sic) of the Act. Hence the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant raised before us two points- (1) Section 5(1) (d) 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 judgement without giving an opportunity to the appellant to file objections thereto or contesting the correctness of the valuation given therein.

6. As the first contention turns upon the provisions of S. 5 (1), 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 agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in S. 161 of the India 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 things without consideration or from a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, for 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, or

(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates 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 advantage.

We are concerned in this case with S. 5 (1) (d) of the Act. Under that clause if 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 S. 5 (2) of the Act with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and which may extend to 7 years, and sha