R GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) was convicted for the offence under S. 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence, this appeal challenging the same.

(2.) The short facts leading to the conviction are as follows :

(3.) Mr. S. A. Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while assailing the judgment impugned, would make the following submissions : "In this case, even though abusing of the position as a public servant had been proved by the prosecution, it was not proved that either the appellant or the customer (A2 and A3) had gained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage as contemplated under S. 5(1)(d) of the Act. Mere abusing the position in the absence of the gain of any pecunilary advantage for himself or for another would not constitute the offence alleged. The materials in this case do not indicate that the appellant had any dishonest intention or that he had obtained any pecuniary advantage or allowed any other person to have pecuniary advantage by the act of his negligence or wilful dereliction of duty. The phrase "Public servant, obtains for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage" means that a person as a public servant must receive or take into possession of a certain property which may be a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, for himself or for any other person. In the light of Ss. 161, 162, 163 and 165, IPC, it is noticed that the public servant has to receive either for himself or for any other person by passing on the same to him. In this case, there is no material to show that the appellant received any pecuniary advantage for himself or passed on to any other person after receipt of the same. Therefore, the mere dereliction of duty and mere abusing of the position would not constitute the offence. Hence, the appellant is liable to be acquitted."