{"id":22026,"date":"1962-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962"},"modified":"2016-09-02T23:58:28","modified_gmt":"2016-09-02T18:28:28","slug":"m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962","title":{"rendered":"M. Narayanan Nambiar vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M. Narayanan Nambiar vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1116, \t\t 1963 SCR Supl. (2) 724<\/div>\n
Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n
Bench: Subbarao, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KERALA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n05\/12\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR 1116\t\t  1963 SCR  Supl. (2) 724\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1973 SC 330\t (13,14)\n RF\t    1975 SC1835\t (14)\n R\t    1977 SC 822\t (8)\n R\t    1979 SC 826\t (20,21)\n RF\t    1990 SC1480\t (54)\n\n\nACT:\nPrevention  of Corruption-Public servant-Abuse\tof  official\nposition-Violation   of\t principles  of\t  natural   justice-\nPrevention  of\tCorruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947), s.  5\t (1)\n(d).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant was convicted under s.5(1)(d)of the Prevention\nof  Corruption Act, 1947, on the ground that by abusing\t his\nposition  as a public servant he obtained an  assignment  of\nGovernment  land in the name of his  brother-in-law  without\nrevealing  the\trelationship and by undervaluing  the  trees\nstanding  on  the land.\t The High Court on  appeal  directed\nthat a statement showing the value of the timber  calculated\non the basis contended by the appellant may be submitted  by\neither\tof  the\t parties.  The appellant did  not  file\t any\nstatement  but\ta  statement  was filed\t on  behalf  of\t the\nprosecution.   The High Court without giving an\t opportunity\nto  the appellant to file objections to the  correctness  of\nthe report and the reliability of the statement filed by the\nprosecution  relied  upon  the\tstatement  to  come  to\t the\nconclusion  that  there had been an under-valuation  by\t the\nappellant.  It was contended that s. 5(1) (d) did not  apply\nto the case and that before the High Court there had been  a\nfailure of natural justice.\nHeld,  that a penal statute must be construed  strictly\t and\nonly such thing,; are offences as come within not merely the\nletter but also the spirit of the statute.\nDyke, v. Elliot, (1872) L.R. 4 P.C. 184, referred to.\nHeld, further, that considering the object and scope of\t the\nPrevention   of\t  Corruption  Act,  1947,   the\t  expression\notherwise'  in\ts. 5(1) (d) is employed to  bring  in  every\nabuse  of  official position by a public servant.   But\t the\njuxtaposition of the word otherwise with the words 'corrupt'\nor 'illegal means' and the fact that dishonesty is  implicit\nin  the word 'abuse' indicate the necessity for a  dishonest\nintention as an ingredient of the offence and innocuous acts\nwill not be covered by the said clause.\n725\nHeld,  further,\t that  the spirit of the Act  which.  is  in\naccord with the words used therein is to take in every\tform\nof  corruption,\t and  the  facts  in  the  instant  case  if\nestablished constitute an offence under. v. 5(1)(d).\nRam  Krishna  v.  State\t Of Delhi,  [1956]  S.C.R.  182\t and\nDhaneshwar  Narain Saxena v. Delhi Administration,<\/a> [1962]  3\nS.C.R, 259, referred to.\nHeld,  also   that  before the High Court,  there  had\tbeen\nviolation of the principles of natural justice and that\t the\nmatter\thad to go back to the High Court for  the  appellant\nbeing  given an opportunity to meet the material put  in  by\nthe prosecution before the High Court.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 155  of
\n1961.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby, special leave from the judgment and\t order\tdate
\nApril  10, 1961 of the Kerala High Court in Criminal  Appeal
\nNo. 143 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
B.   R.\t  L.  Iyengar  and  T.\tS.  Venkataraman,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
V.   Narayana Menon and Sardar Bahadur, for. the respondent.
\n1962.\tDecember 5. The judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nSUBBA  RAO  J.-This  appeal by special\tleave  is  preferred
\nagainst the Judgment of the High Court of Kerala, confirming
\nthat  of  the  Special judge,  ,Trivandrum,  convicting\t the
\naccused\t under\ts.  5(2),  read\t with  s.  5(1)(d)  of\t the
\nPrevention  of Corruption Act, 1947,(2 of  1947),  hereafter
\ncalled\tthe Act, and sentencing; him; to pay a fine  of\t Rs.
\n1,0001-,  or in default to undergo simple  imprisonment\t for
\nfour months.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant\twas, a Special Revenue\tInspector  for\tland
\nassignment  at Manantoddy in Wynad Taluk in the old  Malabar
\ndistrict.\n<\/p>\n
726<\/span><\/p>\n
The  case  of the prosecution was that he,  by\tabusing\t his
\nposition  as a public servant,, got 4 acres and 80 cents  of
\nGovernment  land  in  R\t S. No\t376\/2  of  Tavinhal  village
\nassigned in the name of his brother-in-law P. V.  Gopinathan
\nNambiar without revealing the fact that he was his  brother-
\nin-law\tand by making false entries in the relevant  records
\nshowing that the said land contained only 97 trees valued at
\nRs. 165\/-, whereas the land had actually 150 trees worth Rs.
\n1450\/-.\t  The suppression of the fact that the assignee\t was
\nhis brother-in-law and the underestimate of the value of the
\nland were dishonestly made to circumvent the rules governing
\nthe assignment of lands to landless poor.
\nThe Special judge and on appeal the High Court held that the
\nappellant  dishonestly\tunderestimated the  extent  and\t the
\nvalue of the trees in the said land with a view to help\t his
\nbrother-in-law\tand  thereby committed an offence  under  s.
\n5(2), read with s.  1(4) of the Act.  Hence the appeal.
\nLearned counsel for the appellant raised before us 2  points
\n: (1) Section 5(1)(a) of the Act does not apply to a case of
\nwrongful loss caused to Government by a public\tservant\t who
\nby deceit induced it to part with its property\t  : (2)\t The
\nHigh Court acted erroneously in relying\t     upon  a  report
\ndated April 5, 1961, made by the   district Forest  Officer,
\nKozhikode, filed by the public\t   prosecutor\tafter\t the
\nappeal\t was  reserved\tfor  judgment  without\t giving\t  an
\nopportunity  to the appellant to file objections thereto  or
\ncontesting the correctness of the valuation given therein.
\nAs  the\t first contention turns upon, the provisions  of  s.
\n5(1), it will be convenient to read the same,\n<\/p>\n
\t      5.    (1)\t A public servant is said to  commit
\n\t      the  offence  of criminal\t misconduct  in\t the
\n\t      discharge of his duty-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   if he habitually accepts or obtains or
\n\t      727<\/span>
\n\t      agrees  to accepts to obtain from\t any  person
\n\t      for  himself    if  or for any  other  person,
\n\t      gratification (other than legal  remuneration)
\n\t      as a motive or reward such as is mentioned  in
\n\t      s.    161 of the, Indian Penal Code, or\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)    if he habitually accepts or obtains or’
\n\t      agrees  to  accept or attempts to\t obtain\t for
\n\t      himself or for any other person, any
\n\t      valuable thing without consideration or for  a
\n\t      consideration which he knows to be inadequate,
\n\t      from any person whom he knows to have been  or
\n\t      to be, or to be likely to be concerned in\t any
\n\t      proceeding or business transacted or about  to
\n\t      be   transacted.\t by  him,  or\thaving\t any
\n\t      connection  with\tthe  official  functions  of
\n\t      himself or of any public servant to whom he is
\n\t      subordinate, or From any’ person whom he knows
\n\t      to  be interested in or related to the  person
\n\t      so concerned, of\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   if\the dishonestly or fraudulently\tmis-
\n\t      appropriates or otherwise converts for his own
\n\t      use any property entrusted to him or under his
\n\t      control  as  a public servant  or\t allows\t any
\n\t      other person so to do, or\n<\/p>\n
\t      (d)   if\the, by, corrupt or illegal means  or
\n\t      by  otherwise abusing his position  as  public
\n\t      servant  obtains for himself or for any  other
\n\t      person any Valuable thing or pecuniary  advan-
\n\t      tage.\n<\/p>\n
We are concerned in this case with 5(1)(d)  of the act Under
\nthat” clause it a public servant by corrupt or illegal means
\nor  by\totherwise  abusing his position\t as  public  servant
\nobtains for, himself or for any other person valuable thing,
\nor  pecuniary  advantage,  he will  be\tguilty\tof  Criminal
\nmisconduct,  punishable\t under\ts.  5(2)  of  the  Act\twith
\nimprisonment  for  a term which shall not be less  than\t one
\nyear  and  which may extend to 7 years, and  shall  also  be
\nliable to fine.\n<\/p>\n
728<\/span><\/p>\n
The  learned counsel contends that clause (d) being a  penal
\nprovision,  shall  be  strictly construed- and\tthat  if  so
\nconstrued,  it\twould only take in cases of  direct  benefit
\nobtained  by a public servant for himself or for  any  other
\nperson\tfrom a third party in the manner  described  therein
\nand  does not cover a case of a wrongful loss caused to\t the
\nGovernment by abuse of his power.\n<\/p>\n
This  conclusion,  the argument proceeds, flows\t from  three
\ncircumstances.\t(1) The benefit obtained in clause (b)\tmust
\nbe similar to that provided for in clauses (a) & (b) 14\t e.,
\nbenefit\t obtained  from\t a  third party;  (2)  The  case  of
\nwrongful  loss to the Government is provided by\t clause\t (c)
\nand any other loss which does not fall within that clause is
\noutside\t the  scope  of the section;  (3)  Though  the\tword
\n“obtains’  has\ta wide meaning in the setting  in  which  it
\nappears in clause (d)\t but  in view of the fact  that\t the
\nsame word used in  a limited sense in is used in  a  limited
\nsense  in   clauses (a) & (b), it should be given a  limited
\nmeaning,  namely, “gets a benefit from a third\tparty”.\t  It
\ntakes colour from the same word used in clauses (a) &  (b)..
\nHe  finally contends that the construction he is seeking  to
\nput forward for our acceptance fits in the general scope and
\nscheme of the Act and that the Legislature intended to leave
\nthe losses caused to the Government by the deception  caused
\nby  its public servant to be dealt with in  accordance\twith
\nthe provisions of the Indian Penal Code or other appropriate
\nlaws.  At the outset we may say that the argument is  rather
\nsubtle\tbut on a deeper scrutiny of the provisions  and\t the
\nclear phraseology used therein, we find that the  contention
\nis not sound.\n<\/p>\n
Before\twe construe the, relevant provisions of the  section
\nin  the\t light\tof the criticism  levelled  by\tthe  learned
\ncounsel,  it will be useful and convenient to  know  briefly
\nthe scope and the object of the Act.  The long title of\t the
\nAct reads:\n<\/p>\n
729<\/span><\/p>\n
‘An  Act  for the more effective prevention of\tbribery\t and
\ncorruption’.\n<\/p>\n
The  preamble  indicates that the Act was passed as  it\t was
\nexpedient   to\tmake  more  effective  provision   for\t the
\nprevention  of\tbribery and corruption.\t The long  title  as
\nwell as the preamble indicate that the Act was passed to put
\ndown  the said social evil i. e. bribery and  corruption  by
\npublic servant.\t Bribery is a form of corruption.  The\tfact
\nthat   in   addition  to  the  word   “bribery”\t  the\tword
\n“‘corruption”  is  used\t shows\tthat  the  legislation\t was
\nintended to combat also other evils in addition to  bribery.
\nThe  existing law i.e. Penal Code was found insufficient  to
\neradicate or even to control the growing evil of bribery and
\ncorruption corroding the public service of our country.\t The
\nprovisions  broadly include the existing offences under\t ss.
\n161  &\t165  of the Indian Penal Code  committed  by  public
\nservants  and  enact  a new  rule  of  presumptive  evidence
\nagainst the accused.  The Act also creates a new offence  of
\ncriminal misconduct by public servants though to some extent
\nit  overlaps  on  the pre-existing  offences  and  enacts  a
\nrebuttable presumption contrary to the well-known principles
\nof  Criminal Jurisprudence.  It also aims to protect  honest
\npublic\tservants  from harassment by  prescribing  that\t the
\ninvestigation  against\tthem could be made  only  by  police
\nofficials of particular status and by making the sanction of
\nthe  Government or other appropriate officer a\tprecondition
\nfor  their prosecution.- As it is a socially useful  measure
\nconceived  in  public  interest,  it  should  be   liberally
\nconstrued  so as to bring about the desired object. i.e.  to
\nprevent\t corruption  among public servants  and\t to  prevent
\nharassment of the honest among them.\n<\/p>\n
A decision of the judicial Committee in Dyke v. Elliot,\t (1)
\ncited  by  the learned counsel as an  aid  for\tconstruction
\nneatly\tstates the principle and therefore may be  extracted
\n:-Lord justice James speaking
\n(1)  (1872) L. R. 4 P. C. 184,191.\n<\/p>\n
730<\/span><\/p>\n
for the Board observes at P. 191
\n\t      “No  doubt  all  penal  Statutes\tare  to\t  be
\n\t      construed strictly, that is to say, the  Court
\n\t      must see that the thing charged as an  offence
\n\t      is within the plain meaning of the words used,
\n\t      and  must not strain the words on\t any  notion
\n\t      that  there  has been a slip, that  there\t has
\n\t      been  a  casus omissus, that the thing  is  so
\n\t      clearly  within,\tthe mischief, that  it\tmust
\n\t      have  been intended to be included  and  would
\n\t      have  been  included if thought  of.   On\t the
\n\t      other hand, the person charged has a right  to
\n\t      say  that the thing charged,  although  within
\n\t      the  Words,  is not within the spirit  of\t the
\n\t      enactment.   But\twhere the thing\t is  brought
\n\t      within the words and within the spirit,  there
\n\t      a\t penal. enactment to be construed, like\t any
\n\t      other   instrument,  according  to  the\tfair
\n\t      common-sense meaning of the language used, and
\n\t      the Court is not to find or make any doubt  or
\n\t      ambiguity in the language of a penal  statute,
\n\t      where  such doubt or ambiguity  would  clearly
\n\t      not  be found or made in the same language  in
\n\t      any other instrument.”\n<\/p>\n
In  our\t view this passage, if we may say so,  restates\t the
\nrule  of  construction of a penal provision from  A  correct
\nperspective.   As  we will presently show the  case  of\t the
\nappellant  on the facts found clearly falls not only  within
\nthe words of clause (d) but also within ‘its spirit.  Indeed
\nif  his\t argument  be accepted not only\t we  will  be  doing
\nviolence to the language but also to the     spirit  of\t the
\nenactment.  First taking\tthe phraseology used inthe
\nclause, the case of a\t public servantcausing\t   wrongful
\nloss; to the Government\t    be benefiting      a thirdparty
\nsquarely  falls\t within it. Let us look at  the\t clause\t “by
\notherwise abusing the position of a public servant’, for the
\nargument mainly turns upon the said clause.  The phraseology
\nis  very  comprehensive.  It covers acts  done\t“‘otherwise”
\nthan by corrupt or illegal means by an officer
\n 731<\/span>
\nabusing\t his position.\tThe gist of the offence\t under\tthis
\nclause is that a public’ officer abusing his position as  _a
\npublic\tservant obtains for himself or for any other  person
\nany  valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.   “Abuse”  means
\nmisuse\t1. e. using his position for something for which  it
\nis  not\t intended That abuse may be by. corrupt\t or  illegal
\nmeans  or otherwise than those means.  The word\t ‘otherwise’
\nhas  wide connotation and if no limitation is placed on\t it,
\nthe words ‘corrupt, ‘illegal’, and “otherwise’ mentioned  in
\nthe clause become surplusage, for on that construction every
\nabuse  of  position  is gathered by the\t clause.   So  ‘some
\nlimitation  will  have\tto. be put on  that  word  and\tthat
\nlimitation is that it takes colour from the preceding  words
\nalong  with which it appears in the clause, that is  to\t say
\nsomething  savouring  of  dishonest act on  his\t part.\t The
\ncontention  of\tthe learned counsel that if  the  clause  is
\nwidely\tconstrued  even a recommendation made  by  a  public
\nservant\t for securing a job for another may come within\t the
\nClause\tand  that could not have been the intention  of\t the
\nLegislature.   But in our view such innocuous acts will\t not
\nbe  covered  by the said clause.  The juxtaposition  of\t the
\nword or otherwise’ with the words “corrupt or illegal means”
\nand  the dishonesty implicit in the word  “‘abuse”  indicate
\nthe necessity for a dishonest intention on his part to bring
\nhim  within ,the meaning of the clause.\t Whether  he  abused
\nhis position or not depends upon the facts of each case; nor
\ncan the word ‘obtains’ be sought in aid to limit the express
\nwords of the section.  ‘Obtain’ means acquire or get.  If  a
\ncorrupt\t officer by the said means obtains a valuable  thing
\nor a pecuniary advantage, he can certainly be said to obtain
\nthe said thing or a pecuniary advantage; but it is said that
\nin clauses () & (c) the same word is used and in the context
\nof those clauses it can only mean getting from a third party
\nother  than  the Government and therefore the  game  meaning
\nmust be given to the said word in clause (d).  “Obtains’  in
\nclause
\n732<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
(a)  &\t(b)  in\t the context of those  provisions  may\tmean
\ntaking\ta bribe from a third party, but there is  no  reason
\nwhy  the same meaning shall be given to that word used in  a
\ndifferent context when that word is comprehensive enough  to
\nfit in the scheme of that provision.  Nor can we agree\tthat
\nas dishonest misappropriation has been (c), the other  cases
\nof  wrongful loss caused Government by the deceit  practiced
\nby a public officer should fall outside the section.   There
\nis no reason why when a comprehensive statute was passed  to
\nprevent\t corruption, this particular category of  corruption
\nshould have been excluded therefrom because the consequences
\nof  such acts are equally harmful to the public as  acts  of
\nbribery.   On a plain reading of the express words  used  in
\nthe clause, we have no doubt that every benefit obtained  by
\na  public servant for himself, or for any other\t person,  by
\nabusing\t his position as a public servant falls\t within\t the
\nmischief of the said clause..\n<\/p>\n
Coming\tto the spirit of the provision, there cannot be\t two
\nviews.\tAs we have expressed earlier, the object of the\t Act
\nwas  to make more effective provision for the prevention  of
\nbribery\t and  corruption.  Bribery means the  conferring  of
\nbenefit by one upon another, in cash or in kind, to  procure
\nan  illegal  or\t dishonest action in favour  of\t the  giver.
\nCorruption includes bribery but has a wider connotation.  It
\nmay  take in the use of all kind of corrupt practices.\t The
\nAct.  was brought in to purify public administration.\tWhen
\nthe Legislature used comprehensive terminology in s. 5(1)(d)
\nto achieve the said purpose, it would be appropriate not  to
\nlimit  the  content by construction  when  particularly\t the
\nsipirit\t of  the statute is in accord With  the\t words\tused
\ntherein,
\nTwo decisions of this court cited at the Bar indicate that a
\nwide   construction  was  placed  by  this  Court’  on\t the
\nprovisions of s. 5(1)(d) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
733<\/span><\/p>\n
In  Ram\t Krishan v. The State of Delhi, (1)  the  appellants
\nwere prosecuted for offering bribe to a Railway Officer\t for
\nhushing\t up  the case against them.  In that context,  s.  5
\n(1)(d)\t was   construed   by\tthis-court.    At   p.\t 188
\nChandrasekhara\tAyyar, J., speaking for the court  made\t the
\nfollowing observation:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Apart  from ‘corrupt and illegal\t means’,  we
\n\t      have  also the words ‘or by otherwise  abusing
\n\t      his  position as a public servant.  If  a\t man
\n\t      obtains a pecuniary advantage by the abuse  of
\n\t      his  position,  he will be guilty\t under\tsub-
\n\t      clause (d). Sections 161, 162 & 163 refer to a
\n\t      motive or a reward for doing or forbearing  to
\n\t      do  something, showing favour or disfavour  to
\n\t      any  person, or for inducing such\t conduct  by
\n\t      the exercise of personal influence.  It is not
\n\t      necessary\t for an offence under clause (d)  to
\n\t      prove  all this.\tIt is enough if\t by  abusing
\n\t      his position as a public servant a man obtains
\n\t      for himself any pecuniary advantage,  entirely
\n\t      irrespective of motive  or reward for  showing
\n\t\t\t    favour or disfavour.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  Court again in Dhaneshwar Narain Saxena v.  The  Delhi
\nAdministration.<\/a>\t (2)  pointed  the wide\t net  cast  by\tthis
\nprovision  in  order  to put  down  corruption.\t  There\t the
\nappellant  was an Upper Division Clerk in the office of\t the
\nChief Commissioner of Delhi.  He knew one Ram\t  Nara\t who
\nwas a fireman serving in Delhi FireBrigade, The\t latter
\nsought the assistance of the aappellant who had nothing
\nto  do with the issuing of licences of fire-arms  which\t was
\ndone by the ‘Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi.\t The
\nappellant took a bribe in order to get the licence for\thim.
\nIt  was argued that as it was not the duty of the  appellant
\nto  issue licences or do something in connection  therewith,
\nhe,  did not commit any offence within the meaning of  s.  5
\n(1)(d) of the Act.  This
\n(1)  [1956] S.C.R. 182.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1962] 3 S.C.R. 259
\n734<\/span>
\nCourt  rejected his contention.\t Sinha, C.J.,  speaking\t for
\nthe  Court  observed at p. 198: “The  legislature  advisedly
\nwidened\t the scope\t  of the crime by giving     a\twho,
\nholding public office and taking advantage of their position
\nobtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.”
\nThe  observations made by this Court in the above two  cases
\nthough\tmade in a different context show  the  comprehensive
\nnature\tof the said provision.\tWe therefore hold  that\t the
\naccused\t in order to assign the land to\t his  brother-in-law
\nunderestimated\tthe value of the said land to  conform\twith
\nthe  rules  and\t thereby abused his  position  as  a  public
\nservant and obtained for him a valuable thing or a pecuniary
\nadvantage  within  the\tmeaning\t of  the  said\tclause\t and
\ntherefore is guilty of an offence under sub.-s. (2) thereof.
\nIt  is next contended that the said finding was vitiated  by
\nthe  fact  that the High Court in arriving  at\tthe  finding
\nrelied upon a valuation list prepared by the District Forest
\nOfficer\t and filed into court without giving an\t opportunity
\nto the appellant to canvass its correctness’.- The  admitted
\nfacts relevant to the argument may be stated.  The arguments
\nin the appeal were concluded on March 22, 1961.\t On April 6,
\n1961,\tthe  Public  Prosecutor\t filed\ta   Valuation\tlist
\npurporting to have been made by the District Forest Officer,
\nKozhikode.   No\t notice\t of  this  list\t was  given  to\t the
\nappellant and therefore he did not file any objections.\t  On
\nApril 10, 1961, the High Court delivered the judgment basing
\nits  finding  on the said Valuation list and  rejecting\t the
\nappeal.\t Before the Special Leave was granted by this court,
\na  report was called for from the High Court with regard  to
\nthe  said  facts.  The report sent by the  Registrar  is  as
\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The   learned  Counsel  for   the   appellant
\n\t      contended before the High Court that the
\n\t      735<\/span>
\n\t      method  of calculation adopted by P.W.  15  in
\n\t      assessing\t the  value of the  timber  was\t not
\n\t      correct  and that the following method  should
\n\t      have been adopted viz., in the case of  timber
\n\t      trees  to calculate the value of each tree  at
\n\t      the rate given in the Madras Forest Manual for
\n\t      that  particular species, and for fuel  trees,
\n\t      to  calculate the value at the  official\trate
\n\t      for  cart\t load  fixed  by  the\tGovernment.’
\n\t      Thereupon\t the  Court directed in\t open  court
\n\t      that  a  statement showing the  value  of\t the
\n\t      timber calculated\t   by  the above method\t may
\n\t      be submitted by either  of  the  parties.\t  No
\n\t      statement-was filled by the appellant’s ounsel
\n\t      and  on 6-4-1961 the State filed a  statement.
\n\t      Since  the statement was meant only to  assist
\n\t      the Court in calculating the correct value  of
\n\t      the  timber along the lines suggested  by\t the
\n\t      appellant’s counsel the matter was not  posted
\n\t      for further argument.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  appellant denied in his affidavit filed before us\tthat
\nany direction was given by the court before the judgment was
\nreserved but the Public Prosecutor filed an affidavit to the
\neffect that such a statement was made in the open court.  We
\nhave no reason to reject the report of the Registrar and the
\naffidavit filed by the Public Prosecutor.  Even so, the fact
\nremains\t that the learned judge acted upon a document  filed
\nby  the\t respondent  without given  an\topportunity  to\t the
\nappellant to file objections or to contest its\treliability.
\nWe  think the principles of natural justice require that  no
\ncourt  shall  give  a finding whether on  fact\tor  law\t and
\nparticularly  on facts without giving an opportunity to\t all
\nthe  con;testing  parties.   As\t that  principle  has\tbeen
\nviolated  in this case, we have no option but to  set  aside
\nthe  finding  of the learned judge on the  question  of\t the
\nvaluation  of  the  trees  on  the  plot  assigned  to\t the
\nappellant’s brother-in-law.We therefore set aside
\n736<\/span>
\nthis finding and request the High Court to submit a  revised
\nfinding\t on  the said question within two  months  from\t the
\nreceipt\t of the record.\t The respondent may file  a  further
\nstatement  if I e so chooses to explain or even\t to  correct
\nthe  valuation\tlist  already filed by\tit.   Thereafter  an
\nopportunity  will  be  given to the appellant  to  file\t his
\nobjections.   The objections filed by the appellant in\tthis
\nCourt  may be also considered by the High Court.   The\tHigh
\nCourt  will  submit the finding on the evidence\t already  on
\nrecord\tincluding the said objections and  statements.\t The
\nparties may file objections to the finding within two  weeks
\nfrom the date the said And is received.\t The appeal will  be
\nposted\tas early as possible after objections are  filed  or
\nafter\tthe  expiry  of\t the  time  given  for\tfiling\t the
\nobjections.\n<\/p>\n
Case remitted for submission of fresh finding.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M. Narayanan Nambiar vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1116, 1963 SCR Supl. (2) 724 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Subbarao, K. PETITIONER: M. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/12\/1962 BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. IMAM, SYED JAFFER AYYANGAR, N. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22026","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM. Narayanan Nambiar vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. Narayanan Nambiar vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-02T18:28:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. Narayanan Nambiar vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-02T18:28:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962\"},\"wordCount\":3566,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962\",\"name\":\"M. Narayanan Nambiar vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-02T18:28:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. Narayanan Nambiar vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 1962\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M. Narayanan Nambiar vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. Narayanan Nambiar vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-02T18:28:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. Narayanan Nambiar vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 1962","datePublished":"1962-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-02T18:28:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962"},"wordCount":3566,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962","name":"M. Narayanan Nambiar vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-02T18:28:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-narayanan-nambiar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-5-december-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. Narayanan Nambiar vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 1962"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22026","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22026"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22026\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}