Duty Of Public Servant's Wife To Discourage Him From Taking Bribe: Madras High Court Refuses To Set Aside Conviction Of Sub-Inspector's Wife

Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that though the Public Servant was no more, his wife should face consequences under Section 109 read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The court added that it was the duty of the wife to discourage her public servant husband from receiving bribes. The court remarked that corruption had pervaded to an unimaginable ratio and if homemakers also become party to corruption, there would be no end to it. The court thus observed that the appellant, whose life was a “bed of roses” with the ill-gotten money should face the consequences also.

“In this country, corruption pervades in an unimaginable ratio. Corruption starts from the home. If the home maker is a party to corruption, there is no end to corruption. Therefore, the Hon'ble former President Dr.A.P.J. Abdulkalam in his address asked the youth to start fighting corruption from the home,” the court said.

The appellant Deivanayaki had challenged her conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Judge (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cases) at Trichy. The prosecution had alleged that Deivayaki's husband, Sakthivel had accumulated assets 115% over his lawful source of income while working as the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karur District.

Deivanayaki contended that the Investigating agency had chosen the check period without any basis, which was malafide thus vitiating the entire proceedings. it was also argued that the sanctioning authority had not considered her explanation at the time of granting the sanction. Thus, it was argued that the sanction was invalid and the cognizance taken by the Special Court without valid sanction was incorrect.

The court noted that though Deivayaki argued that the income was more than what was assessed by the investigating agency, there was no clear evidence to prove the same. The court also observed that it was the prerogative of the Investigating Agency to choose the check period.

Further, though Deivanayaki submitted that she had received money as a loan from her father and father-in-law which was used for construction, the court found no evidence for the same. The court observed that as per the Tamilnadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, Sakthivel was duty-bound to obtain permission from the department to borrow any amount more than Rs. 5000/- and no such permission was obtained in the present case.

Thus, noting that Deivanayaki had not satisfactorily accounted for the income, the court refused to interfere with the order of the Single judge and dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Lakshmi Gopinathan for M/s.Polax Legal Solution

Counsel for the respondent: Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 229

Case Title: Deivanayaki v State

Case No: Crl.A(MD).No.88 of 2017