"Public Employment Cannot Be Obtained By Paying Bribe", Madras HC Rejects Petition For Interim Custody Of Rs. 10 Lakh Seized During Job Racket Case Probe

While dismissing a petition for interim custody of Rs.10 lakhs seized in a job racketing case, the Madras High Court bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy expressed his displeasure at the way people were willing to pay huge sums of money for getting a job. He enunciated that public appointments were made through a selection procedure and could not be obtained by paying bribes. He highlighted that such persons did not realise that it took years of work to earn such salaries and gave no thought to the plight of persons who scored more marks than them.

The court stated as follows:

It is to be understood by all concerned that public appointment is only by selection process and no job can be obtained by giving bribe. But in this case, it is seen that the petitioner with his full knowledge has given a huge amount of Rs.78 Lakhs for the purpose of securing job under Class -I, without any thought about that how many years a person has to work and earn that much of salary and without any guilt as to what will happen to the person, who has scored more marks. Hence, this Court is not inclined to pass any order expediting the trial and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 

In the present case, the petitioner was a victim of job racketing. In the course of the investigation, the Police had seized some amounts and had frozen the accounts of the accused. The petitioner filed an application for a return of Rs.10 lakh as interim custody under Section Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. However, the same was rejected by the Magistrate who held that the investigation was at the nascent stage and that the matter could be decided only during trial. Thus, the petitioner approached the high court seeking to quash this impugned order and to direct interim custody of Rs. 10 lakh in the account of the accused. 

While dismissing the petition, the court also remarked that the petitioner appeared to be a greedy person who paid a sum of Rs.78 lakh for getting a Class-I job. Moreover, he approached the court for the return of money without even waiting for the trial to be completed as only then a clear finding could be arrived at. 

Case Title: K.Sadagopan v. State Rep.by, Inspector of Police and ors

Case No: Crl.R.C.No.695 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 259

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.A.Ravindran

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.side)