Categories: Other Courts

Madras HC Sentenced Its Court Officer In A Bribery Case

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.

Nunnem Gangte

Recent Posts

Centre Opposes Ex-Judges Panel To Monitor Stubble Burning In SC

The Centre on Friday opposed a proposal in the Supreme Court to form a committee…

3 hours ago

“It’s A Celebration For Us”: Delhi HC Bar Association Felicitates CJI Sanjiv Khanna

The Delhi High Court Bar Association on Friday honored Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv…

4 hours ago

International Criminal Court Issues Arrest Warrant For Israeli PM Netanyahu

The International Criminal Court has recently issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,…

4 hours ago

Cal HC Stays Demolition Of Illegal Constructions In WB’s Mandarmoni

The Calcutta High Court on Friday granted an interim stay on the demolition of alleged…

5 hours ago

SC To Pass Order On Pleas To Efface Words ‘Secular’, ‘Socialist’ From Preamble

The Supreme Court on Friday announced that it would deliver its order on November 25…

5 hours ago

Air Pollution: SC Questions Delhi Govt On Truck Entry Amid GRAP-4 Restrictions

The Supreme Court raised concerns on Friday about the "drastic" consequences of the GRAP Stage…

5 hours ago