Madras High Court Holds Court Officer Guilty Of Taking Bribe For Job, Sentences Him To 3 Years Rigorous Imprisonment

Justice P Velmurugan reversed the order of the Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act and convicted the court officer under Section 420 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of five thousand rupees. 

"This Court has carefully gone through the entire materials and the antecedents of the respondent and finds that the respondent not only cheated the defacto complainant and committed the offence under Section 420 IPC, but also, as a public servant, he obtained other than the legal remuneration and committed offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988."

The case against the officer was that, taking advantage of his official position, he misrepresented to the complainant that he can secure a job for him by using his influence. He also demanded and accepted 40,000 rupees from the complainant on two occasions. When the complainant asked him to return the money on failure to secure job, he issued a cheque which was dishonoured at the time of presentation.

The trial court had ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused and acquitted him by extending benefit of doubt. Challenging the order of the special court, the State had moved the High court.

The respondent officer on the other hand contended that the transaction between him and the complainant was merely a loan transaction and that he had not misused his official position in any manner.

He further submitted that he had issued a cheque to the complainant towards repayment of loan which unfortunately had bounced. However, in such situation, the complainant should have worked out his remedy in the manner known to law and should have filed a civil suit, he argued.

"Instead, he has filed the criminal complaint, which is abuse of law. The trial court rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the respondent. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed," his counsel argued.

The court, however, did not find force in this argument. It noted that being a public servant, the accused should not have entered into any financial transaction without prior permission from the department. 

"He should not have any financial transaction with the private party without prior permission from the department. There is no material to show that the respondent obtained permission from the department or competent authority for borrowal of money. It is for the respondent to prove that the money received from the defacto complainant is a loan amount," said the court.

The court further disagreed with the defendant that a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act would clarify that the money given was in fact a loan amount. The court also found it improbable that the respondent, a public servant would seek financial assistance from the complainant who was poor and jobless.

"The defacto complainant is neither a banker, pawn broker or money lender and he is jobless and very poor person. It is highly improbable that the respondent being a government servant, would have approached a poor person like the defacto complainant seeking financial assistance."

The court noted that even previously, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the respondent for receiving illegal gratification in the pretext of securing jobs.

Case Title: State v. VD Mohanakrishnan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 62