R. S. Nayak vs A. R.

Antulay on 16 February, 1984

Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 684, 1984 SCR (2) 495

Author: D Desai

Prevention of Corruption Act 1947-S. 6-Interpretation of. Whether court can take cognizance of
offences enumerated in s. 6 against public servant without sanction of competent authority-Which is
competent authority-Which is competent authority to give sanction-What is relevant date on
which sanction be there-For attracting s. 6 accused should be a public servant both on date of
offence and on date when court takes cognizance of offence. In cases where accused holds

several offices each one of which makes him public servant- Whether sanction of competent
authorities of all the offices necessary or whether sanction of that competent authority

alone under which public servant has misuse his office is sufficient.

Held: The provisions of the Act must receive such construction at the hands of the
court as would advance the object and purpose underlying the Act and at any rate not

defeat it. If the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of
the court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the provisions. In the event
of an ambiguity of the plain meaning of the words used in the statute being self- defeating,
the court is entitled to ascertain the intention of the legislature to remove the ambiguity by
construing the provision of the statute as a whole keeping in view what was the mischief-when the
statute was enacted and to remove which the legislature enacted the statute. Whenever
a question of construction arises upon ambiguity or where two

views are possible of a Provision; it would be the duty of the court to adopt that construction
which would advance the object underlying the Act.

In this case the literal rule is applied because plain meaning is given and moreover the true intention
of the legislature can be safely derived by applying this rule.