A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan was entertaining a criminal appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the acquittal of the respondent/accused passed by the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.
The court convicted the respondent under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of rupees 5000, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 1 year.
Brief Facts:
The officer taking advantage of his official position, 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
Contention of the appellant:
The officer has asked for and accepted rupees 40,000 on two occasions on the pretext of getting a job for the complainant, but when he was unable to do so and the complainant asked for his money, he issued him a cheque which was dishonoured at the bank. According to the witnesses presented by the appellant this was the modus operandi of the respondent and he has done this on several occasions before also.
Contention of the respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the amount was accepted as a loan only and the officer hasn’t misused his power or authority in anyway, hence charges cannot be brought under the Prevention of corruption act. He further submitted that the respondent 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,
Observations of the Court:
The court held that being a public servant, the accused should not have entered into any financial transaction without prior permission from the department and also the respondent is not likely to ask for financial assistance from a poor and illiterate man who himself was jobless. 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 said, ”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 also noted that such proceedings have been initiated against the respondent even in the past.
Decision of the Court:
The court convicted the respondent under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of rupees 5000, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 1 year. Also concurrently, he was sentenced to the same punishment for his conviction for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Case Title: State of Madras v V.D. Mohanakrishnan
Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan
Case No.: Crl.A.No. 352 of 2015
Advocate for the Appellant: Mrs. G.V. Kasthuri.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. R.M. Meenakshi Sundaram
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
