The Madras High Court recently sentenced a court officer to three years in prison for accepting bribe by misusing his position.
A single bench of Justice P Velmurugan sentenced VD Mohanakrishnan of misusing his position and cheating an illiterate man by taking money from him on the false promise of securing a job for him.
The bench overturned a 2015 special court order that acquitted VD Mohanakrishnan, a court officer at the High Court, on all charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Mohanakrishnan was convicted of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC and criminal misconduct by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court determined that Mohanakrishnan had accepted money other than “legal remuneration” and had abused his position of authority.
Mohanakrishnan, who was employed as a court officer, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of ₹5,000.
Mohanakrishnan was booked by the police following a complaint by a man who alleged that Mohanakrishnan had taken ₹40,000 on the promise of securing a job by “using his influence.”
When he was unable to find the complainant a job, he requested that his money be returned. Then Mohanakrishnan wrote him a check, which bounced.
However, the special court acquitted Mohanakrishnan, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt.
Appearing for Mohanakrishnan, Advocate RM Meenakshi Sundaram told the bench that the monetary transaction between Mohanakrishnan and the complainant was merely a “loan transaction” and that he had not taken the money on the promise of securing job.
The argument, however, was rejected by the High Court.
It stated that because Mohanakrishnan worked for the government, he was required to obtain prior approval from his department before engaging in any loan transactions with private parties.
Furthermore, the complainant in the case was an illiterate and poor man, not a pawn broker or a money lender, and it was unlikely that Mohanakrishnan would have approached such a person for a loan, according to the High Court.
“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 noted.
As a result, it found Mohanakrishnan guilty of cheating under the IPC and of violating the Prevention of Corruption Act.
