Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Venkatasubbiah

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 18, 1947
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/779479

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Venkatasubbiah

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1948Mad63; (1947)2MLJ160

Excerpt

- .....by both the courts below. p.w. 1 's version has been corroborated by his master and other witnesses. there can therefore be no doubt that the sum of rs, 15 was received by the petitioner as an illegal gratification for doing an official act.2. two ingenious arguments are raised by mr. n. somasundaram for the petitioner. the first is that the phrase ' motive or reward ' in section 161 of the code of criminal procedure does not cover a case where the payment is made in respect of past favours. the term ' reward ' in the phrase is manifestly intended to apply to a past service. what is forbidden generally is receiving any gratification as motive to do or a reward for having done any such thing as is desscribed in the definition. any other construction would lead to an absurdity.' in that view the payment would be a bribe when paid before the doing of an official act, but it would not be a bribe if paid after the official act has been done or official favour has been shown. it will be the easiest thing for a person in such a position to stipulate for the payment immediately after the doing of the official act or the showing of the official favour. such a construction is not in keeping with either the language or the spirit of section 161 of the code of criminal procedure.3. the second contention is that since the petitioner was on leave, he ceased to be a public servant and that consequently section 161 was not applicable to him. such leave counts as duty and so long as a person is on duty, he must be deemed to be a public servant.4. i find no merit whatever in this petition and consequently i confirm the conviction.5. with regard to the sentence there are no particularly aggravating features in this case ; and, in my opinion, a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment will meet the ends of justice. the sentence is reduced accordingly.

Full Judgment

Yahya Ali, J.

1. The petitioner was an Assistant Goods Clerk in the Chidambaram railway station. He is said to have received from P. W. 1 a sum of Rs. 15 as a reward for his having accepted and consigned some parcels. The defence was that that sum was received as a loan. That defence, being manifestly puerile, was rightly rejected by both the Courts below. P.W. 1 's version has been corroborated by his master and other witnesses. There can therefore be no doubt that the sum of Rs, 15 was received by the petitioner as an illegal gratification for doing an official act.

2. Two ingenious arguments are raised by Mr. N. Somasundaram for the petitioner. The first is that the phrase ' motive or reward ' in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not cover a case where the payment is made in respect of past favours. The term ' reward ' in the phrase is manifestly intended to apply to a past service. What is forbidden generally is receiving any gratification as motive to do or a reward for having done any such thing as is desscribed in the definition. Any other construction would lead to an absurdity.' In that view the payment would be a bribe when paid before the doing of an official act, but it would not be a bribe if paid after the official act has been done or official favour has been shown. It will be the easiest thing for a person in such a position to stipulate for the payment immediately after the doing of the official act or the showing of the official favour. Such a construction is not in keeping with either the language or the spirit of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The second contention is that since the petitioner was on leave, he ceased to be a public servant and that consequently Section 161 was not applicable to him. Such leave counts as duty and so long as a person is on duty, he must be deemed to be a public servant.

4. I find no merit whatever in this petition and consequently I confirm the conviction.

5. With regard to the sentence there are no particularly aggravating features in this case ; and, in my opinion, a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment will meet the ends of justice. The sentence is reduced accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial