Sunday, September 22, 2024
HomeLawMadras High Court convicts its court officer for taking bribe from illiterate...

Madras High Court convicts its court officer for taking bribe from illiterate man on false promise of securing job

Mohanakrishnan told the High Court that the monetary transaction between him and the complainant was merely a “loan transaction” and that he had not taken the money on the promise of securing job.

The High Court, however, refused to accept the argument.

It said that given that Mohanakrishnan was a government employee, he was required to seek prior permission from his department before engaging in any loan transactions with private parties.

Besides, the complainant in the case was not a pawn broker or a money lender, but an illiterate and poor man, and therefore, it was unlikely that Mohanakrishnan would have approached such a person for a loan, the High Court said.

“The defacto complainant is neither a banker, pawn broker nor money lender and he is a 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 order stated.

Hence, it held Mohanakrishnan guilty of cheating under IPC and for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

“Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the transaction between the respondent and the defacto-complianant is not loan transaction or money transaction. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the respondent has committed charged offences. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence and also antecedents of the respondent and simply acquitted the accused. 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 offence under Sections 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 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,” the Court ruled.

Additional Public Prosecutor GV Kasthuri appeared for the appellant-State government.

Advocate RM Meenakshi Sundaram appeared for Mohanakrishnan.

Source: Barandbench

RELATED ARTICLES
- Advertisment -

Most Popular

Recent Comments