'Corruption Starts From Home': Madras HC Affirms Conviction Of Sub-Inspector’s Wife In Corruption Case

The Madras High Court upheld the conviction of Deivanayaki, the wife of a deceased Sub-Inspector of Police, for her involvement in accumulating wealth disproportionate to her husband’s known sources of income.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

'Corruption Starts from Home': Madras HC Affirms Conviction of Sub-Inspector’s Wife in Corruption Case

Chennai: The Madras High Court confirmed the conviction of Deivanayaki, the wife of the late Sub-Inspector of Police, R. Sakthivel, for her involvement in accumulating wealth far beyond her husband’s known sources of income.

This landmark judgment, delivered by Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, underscores the pervasive nature of corruption and highlights the significant role family members play in either curbing or fostering such illicit practices.

Case Background

The case, known as Deivanayaki v. State (Crl.A(MD).No.88 of 2017), centered on allegations that Sub-Inspector R. Sakthivel had amassed assets worth Rs. 6,77,626—115% over his lawful income—during the period from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 1996. These assets included land, house sites, and constructed buildings.

Following Sakthivel’s death during the trial, the charges were pursued against his wife, Deivanayaki, under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Legal Issues and Court’s Decision

1. Validity of Check Period: Deivanayaki’s counsel argued that the chosen check period was arbitrary and malicious. However, the court upheld the Investigating Agency’s prerogative to fix the check period, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra v. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla.

2. Sanction for Prosecution: The appellant contended that the sanctioning authority did not consider her explanation before granting prosecution sanction. The court dismissed this argument, affirming the validity of the obtained sanction.

3. Assessment of Income and Assets: The court thoroughly examined the prosecution’s evidence, including the valuation of the building and agricultural income. It concluded that the prosecution accurately assessed the assets and income, and Deivanayaki failed to provide satisfactory evidence to counter these assessments.

4. Role of Family in Corruption: Justice Ramakrishnan made a profound observation about the role of family members in corruption. He remarked-

“Corruption starts from the home. If the homemaker is a party to corruption, there is no end to corruption.”

Important Observations

Justice Ramakrishnan’s judgment included several notable observations:

“It is the duty of the appellant, wife of the Public Servant, to discourage her husband from receiving bribes. Philosophy of life is not to take bribe. If anyone accepts bribe, he and his family will be ruined.”

“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.”

Conclusion

The court dismissed Deivanayaki’s appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cases) at Trichy.

She was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and fined Rs. 1,000. The court also directed the trial judge to secure the appellant and ensure the confiscation of properties acquired through illegal means.