Unimaginable Rate Of Corruption In Country, If Anyone Accepts Bribe His Family Will Be Ruined: Madras HC Sets Aside Acquittal Of Customs Officer

Quoting the prophecies of Jesus, Justice KK Ramakrishnan remarked that the philosophy of life should be not to take bribes.

“Philosophy of life is not to take bribe. If anyone accepts bribe, he and his family will be ruined. Once they enjoyed the ill-gotten money, they should suffer as Jesus Christ prophesied in the following phrases: “If you try to make a profit dishonestly, you will get your family into trouble. Don't take bribes and you will live longer.” “What you get by dishonesty you may enjoy like the finest food, but sooner or later it will be like a mouthful of sand,” the court said.

The court found the officer's wife guilty of the offences and refused to quash the case against her. The court added that corruption starts from home, and when the homemaker herself becomes a party to the corruption, there would be no end. The court also emphasised the need to fight corruption from home.

“In this country, corruption pervades in an unimaginable ratio. Corruption starts from the home. If the home maker is a party to corruption, there is no end to corruption. Therefore, the Hon'ble former President Dr.A.P.J. Abdulkalam in his address asked the youth to start fighting corruption from the home in the following words: The question is “will the daughter or son would be bold enough to say to their corrupt father please do not do that namely corruption”. Let us start from home,” the court said.

The court thus sentenced the officer to rigorous imprisonment of 4 years and a fine of Rs. 75,00,000 for the offenses under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The officer's wife was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 4 years and a fine of Rs. 25,00,000 for offences under Section 109 of the IPC read with Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Since the officer was to undergo an eye operation and had no other member to assist him, the court also granted the couple leave for 20 days.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the CBI against the acquittal of V Govindaswamy, who was working as Superintendent of Customs, Tuticorin, and his wife. The case against Govindaswamy was that he had amassed disproportionate wealth assets to the extent of Rs. 1,10,95,676, which was 443% disproportionate to his known sources of income. The trial judge, however, acquitted the couple of all charges.

The CBI argued that the trial judge had committed an error of law and that the findings of the trial judge were perverse. The CBI contended that the trial judge erroneously committed error in the factual aspects and found that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The CBI thus sought to set aside the order of the trial judge and sought conviction.

On the other hand, the officer and his wife submitted that the CBI had made illegal searches and the material found during the illegal search was not admissible. It was submitted that as per the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court, the defence witnesses should also be given equal treatment which was followed by the trial judge. It was further argued that the officer who registered the case was not examined, which would vitiate the trial.

The high court refused to accept the view taken by the trial judge holding that the trail was vitiated since there was no preliminary enquiry. The court noted that in the present case, upon search, the CBI had legitimately found incriminating materials to register the case. Thus, the court held that there was no justification to entertain the plea that the registration of the case without conducting preliminary enquiry vitiated the trial.

The court noted the trial judge's finding that the officer in charge was not competent to give sanction and for that reason the trial was vitiated. The court was however held that the finding was illegal and perverse as the judgment relied by the trial judge had been overruled. The court also noted that there were documents to prove that the officer in charge had power to accord sanction.

The court added that the trial judge had merely relied on the evidence of the family members of the accused without any supporting materials and without even seeing the inherent improbability in their evidence. Thus, finding that the trial judge had committed error of law, the court allowed CBI's appeal and set aside the 'unmerited acquittal judgment'.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. C. Muthusaravanan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Senior Counsel for M/s. S. Sankarapandian

Case Title: State v. Govindaswamy and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 119

Case No: CRL.A(MD).No.86 of 2019