The Madras High Court recently sentenced a court officer to three years rigorous imprisonment after finding him guilty of “misusing his official position” and “cheating” an illiterate man by taking money from him on the false promise of securing a job for him [The State v VD Mohanakrishnan].

Justice P Velmurugan quashed a 2015 order of a special court that had acquitted the court officer, VD Mohanakrishnan, who was employed at the High Court, on all charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The High Court proceeded to convict Mohanakrishnan for the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC and for criminal misconduct by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Court held that Mohanakrishnan had misused his official position and accepted money other than “legal remuneration.” 

It sentenced Mohanakrishnan 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 failed to get the complainant a job, the latter asked for his money to be returned. Mohanakrishnan then wrote him a cheque which bounced.

The special court, however, acquitted Mohanakrishnan saying that the prosecution had failed to establish his guilt.

The State government then approached the High Court challenging the special court’s order.

Mohanakrishnan told the High Court that the monetary transaction between him and the complainant was merely a “loan transaction” and that he had not taken the money on the promise of securing job.

The High Court, however, refused to accept the argument.

It said that given that Mohanakrishnan was a government employee, he was required to seek prior permission from his department before engaging in any loan transactions with private parties.

Besides, the complainant in the case was not a pawn broker or a money lender, but an illiterate and poor man, and therefore, it was unlikely that Mohanakrishnan would have approached such a person for a loan, the High Court said.

“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 stated.

Hence, it held Mohanakrishnan guilty of cheating under IPC and for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

“Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the transaction between the respondent and the defacto-complianant is not loan transaction or money transaction. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the respondent has committed charged offences. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence and also antecedents of the respondent and simply acquitted the accused. This Court has carefully gone through the entire materials and the antecedents of the respondent and finds that the respondent not only cheated the defacto complainant and committed offence under Sections 420 IPC, but also, as a public servant, he obtained other than the legal remuneration and committed offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,” the Court ruled.

Additional Public Prosecutor GV Kasthuri appeared for the appellant-State government.

1. Advocate RM Meenakshi Sundaram appeared for Mohanakrishnan.