The Madras High Court sentenced a Customs Officer and his wife to four years in prison, highlighting rampant corruption in India. The court remarked that corruption exists at unimaginable levels and often begins at home. This case highlights the deep-rooted bribery and misconduct within government institutions.
The Madras High Court expressed concern over the “unimaginable” extent of corruption in India while convicting a customs officer and his wife in a case involving disproportionate assets, sentencing them to four years in prison.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted the allegations that the customs officer’s wife assisted him in illegally acquiring property, stating that the fight against corruption must begin at home.
He remarked,
“In this country, corruption pervades in an unimaginable ratio. Corruption starts from the home. If the homemaker is a party to corruption, there is no end to corruption. Therefore, the Hon’ble former President Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam 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 be bold enough to say to their corrupt father, please do not do that, namely corruption?’ Let us start from home.”
The High Court stated,
“In this country, corruption pervades in an unimaginable ratio.”
The Court remarked that the customs officer’s wife should have dissuaded her husband from accepting bribes. The judge noted that her lifestyle was made comfortable through ill-gotten wealth and that she must face the repercussions through imprisonment.
Consequently, she was sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25 lakh. Her husband received a similar sentence of four years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a higher fine of Rs.75 lakh.
The Court choose not to impose the maximum sentence, taking into account their age and health conditions.
The judge also issued a general warning to any officials involved in bribery, stating,
“The philosophy of life is not to take bribes. If anyone accepts a bribe, he and his family will be ruined. Once they enjoyed the ill-gotten money, they should suffer, as Jesus Christ prophesied: ‘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 may be enjoyable like the finest food, but sooner or later it will be like a mouthful of sand.’ Do not accept a bribe, for it blinds people to what is right and undermines the cause of the innocent. The person who receives money dishonestly is like a bird that hatches eggs it didn’t lay. In the prime of life, he will lose his riches, and in the end, he is nothing but a fool,”
As stated in the Court’s sentencing order on March 21,
“If anyone accepts bribe, he and his family will be ruined.”
The case involved V Govindaswamy, a Superintendent of the Customs Department, and his wife, V Geetha.
In 2012, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) raided their properties, uncovering substantial amounts of cash and property documents. The CBI alleged that Govindaswamy had acquired disproportionate wealth exceeding Rs.1.10 crores in both his name and that of his wife, claiming this amount was 443 percent more than his known sources of income.
Both individuals were charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988. However, a trial court acquitted them in 2018, leading the CBI to appeal to the High Court.
On March 4, the High Court determined that the trial court had considered insignificant loopholes and “made a mountain out of a molehill” by focusing on trivial and irrelevant details to justify the acquittal.
The High Court emphasized that trial courts should not be preoccupied with immaterial gaps or fanciful doubts.
It stated that,
“It is not every doubt but only a reasonable benefit of doubt that ought to be given to the accused.”
Also Read: Global Corruption Index 2024 | Denmark Tops the List, India Slips to 96th Rank
The High Court stated,
“It is not only the duty of the Court to acquit an innocent, but it is also the paramount duty of the Court to ensure that a guilty man does not escape. Therefore, extending the rule of benefit of doubt in this case cannot be appreciated… The function of the criminal Court is to uncover the truth, and it is incorrect to focus on minor lapses in an investigation, irrelevant omissions, and minor contradictions to acquit the accused… The cherished principles of the golden thread of proof of reasonable doubt that run through our law should not be stretched morbidly to encompass every hunch, hesitancy, and degree of doubt,”
The High Court concluded that the trial court’s decision constituted an unjustified acquittal that needed to be overturned to uphold the integrity of the justice system.
As a result, the trial court’s verdict was annulled, and the accused were found guilty of the alleged offenses in a judgment delivered on March 4. Their sentencing took place on March 21.
Special Public Prosecutor C. Muthusaravanan represented the CBI, while Senior Counsel C. Arul Vadivel, also known as Sekar, instructed by M/s S. Sankarapandian, represented the accused.
Case Title: State v. V Govindaswamy