The Madras High Court’s Madurai bench has granted bail to a block development officer convicted for accepting a bribe under Section 7 under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The officer, Govindarajan, is seeking suspension of sentence and bail through the present miscellaneous petition.

A single-judge bench of Justice R. Pongiappan observed the petitioner and the second accused (Mahalingam) committed an act amounting to criminal misconduct by public servant by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing the official position of the Block Development Officer and Manager in Kadavur Panchayat Union Office and dishonestly obtained pecuniary advantages for themselves in the presence of official witness.

The court noted, “Apart from the same, the counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised substantial grounds and the same also needs detailed appraisal. More than that, the present appeal is not likely to be taken up in the near future. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioner/first accused is entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence and bail.”

Govindarajan was serving as a Block Development Officer (block panchayat) and the second accused Mahalingam was working as Deputy Block Development Officer (Admin-Manager) at Kadavur Panchayat Union Office at Tharagampatti, Karur District. On November 8, 2011, the petitioner and the second accused Mahalingam demanded a bribe of Rs 10,000 and Rs 5,000 respectively for themselves at their office from the defacto complainant Krishnan for arranging and issuing the cheque leaf for Rs 65,500 towards the remaining amount of money payable to Krishnan for the wooden boxes supplied by him to Kadavur Panchayat Union Office for counting the ballot paper (votes) in the counting centres after the recent local poll.

C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, the counsel for the petitioner, contended that there were a lot of contradictions found in the evidence given by prosecution witnesses and thereby, it cannot be concluded that the proceedings in respect to the trap stated by prosecution witnesses are all compliance with the necessary legal provision. He further submitted that there was no demand attributed against the defacto complainant during the relevant point of time.

 “As of now, the petitioner was terminated from service and he is suffering without proper medicine in prison,” counsel for the petitioner further submits.

E. Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent, submitted that the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution has clearly proved their case, beyond reasonable doubt.

The bench noted, “It is true that the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses in respect to the demand, needs detailed appraisal. Further, it is necessary to find out that the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses in respect of the trap is sufficient to accept the case of the prosecution.”

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court expressed concern that several cases handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) ended in acquittal while challenging the recruitment methods adopted by the investigation agency.

The Division Bench of Justice N. Kirubakaran and Jutsice B. Pugalendhi observed on Tuesday that the time has come to look into problems faced by the CBI and its investigation needs to be improved by adding experts and modern gadgets.

The case involves a financial scam involving the failure to return about Rs 300 crore in deposits. A plea was filed praying that the matter be referred to the CBI. The Bench has urged the Economic Offences Wing to carry out its investigation swiftly and file a charge sheet at the earliest.

The Court opined that the CBI cannot rely on deputations when it is investigating serious white-collar crimes, as deputed officers from the State Police/CISF/CRPF may not be appropriately trained to handle such cases.

The Court further noted that, through its own recruitment process, specially trained officers should be recruited by the CBI in order to live up to its name as a premier investigating agency.

The Court remarked, “The CBI should have separate recruitment, they should be experts in crime investigations. Deputations are not enough. That is why all the important cases handed over to the CBI ends in acquittal.”

The Court ordered the Centre to respond to different queries, including the following:

• Does CBI recruit its employees specifically for its investigation team independently or through an agency?

• Does the CBI depend exclusively on police officers from agencies such as the State Police, CSF and CRPF to be deputised?

• What is the CBI’s strength, particularly its investigation team?

• Why not raise the number of investigating officers, as more cases are referred to the CBI?

• Why not the CBI recruit candidates with expertise such as CA, ICWA, ACF, etc. Are they concerned with cases of bank fraud?

• In the last 20 years, how many cases have been referred to the CBI?

• What is the status of the cases there?

• How many cases have resulted in conviction/acquittal?

• What is the conviction rate?

• Why not raise the source of capital to CBI as it is seen that there are not ample resources for CBI?

Also Read: Allahabad HC stays Basic Education teachers from taking up voter list revision duty

The next date of hearing is December 14.