BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
Prabu – Petitioner
Vs.
The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District – Respondent
CRL. O.P. (MD) No. 949 of 2016
Decided On : 20-01-2016
Corruption - Inspector Mariyappan's illegal gratification - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 4(1), Section 13(1)(d) - The court discussed the term 'gratification' and highlighted the influence of greed and corruption on decision-making. The court emphasized that corruption is the deadliest enemy of every free civilized society.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner's parents were selling goods in front of a temple and sought permission to do so. An inspector from the Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department allegedly demanded illegal gratification from the Petitioner's parents and threatened them when they refused.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the Criminal Revision Petition, acknowledging the preliminary enquiry ordered against the inspector for illegal gratification.
Issues: Alleged demand for illegal gratification, threat, and failure to take action on the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the term 'gratification' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the influence of greed and corruption on decision-making.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the Criminal Revision Petition, acknowledging the preliminary enquiry ordered against the inspector for illegal gratification.
1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Original Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Second Respondent/Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Sivagangai to register his complaint, dated 5.1.2016, on the file of the Second Respondent to register his complaint, dated 5.1.2016, on the file of the Second Respondent and to investigate the same in accordance with Law.
2. According to the Petitioner, his parents namely, one Chandrasekar and Angammal were the bread-winners of the family selling Fruits, Flowers, Coconuts, sacred herbs like Tulasi etc in-front of the Temple, namely Sree Renganathar Perumal Kovil and Kothanda Ramar Thirukkoil and they projected W.P(MD)No.14704 of 2015 and W.P(MD)No.14508 of 2015, seeking permission to sell Flowers etc in-front of the said Temple and this Court, on 13.08.2015, had passed an order directing the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department, Sivagangai to consider the representation sent to the concerned Respondents within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
3. The stand of the Petitioner is that on 24.09.2015, at 11.30 a.m., Mariyappan, Inspector of Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department came to the Petitioner's place as per the order of this Court passed in the aforesaid Writ Petitions and informed the Petitioner's parents that he is coming from the Joint Commissioner's Office to inspect the spot eligible for erection of shop for selling the pooja articles or not etc and that the said place is very much suitable for erection of shops for pooja articles and he would report the same to the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department.
4. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said Mariappan, Inspector of Police, HR & CE Department, Thiruvadanai informed the Petitioner for implied illegal gratification as he came to inspect for the sake of the welfare of the Petitioner's Parents and that the Petitioner understood that said Mariappan is asking for money and that he give Rs.1,000/- to the said Mariyappan (Inspector).
5. That apart, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that after receiving the money from the Petitioner, the said Inspector Mariyappan informed that they would receive the order from the concerned Department from Chennai as soon as possible within a month's time to erect the shops for selling Pooja Articles in the place in question and he also informed the Petitioner's parents that they would have to pay some more money to other officials of the Government soon, as they received the order for erection of shops and obtained signatures from the Petitioner's parents in two blank white sheets.
6. Furthermore, it is the plea of the Petitioner that the Inspector Mariyappan after moving from the place of the Petitioner met the Trustees of the Temple namely, One Shanmugam Chettiar and Somasundaram Chettiar in-front of his house and indulged in conversation with them for quite a long time and received few notes of 1000 rupees from Somasundaram Chettiar also and further that the Petitioner along with one Senthil had seen the whole episode as it took place near to him. After receipt of the amount, the Inspector and Trustees, according to the Petitioner, moved to a Hotel named 'Vasantha Fresh' and took their lunch and when the Inspector Mariyappan moved away from the said Trustees, the Petitioner met him and asked him about the same, for which, the Inspector replied to him to mind his own business and left the place in a hurried manner.
7. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner's parents sent a complaint as regards the aforesaid incident to the Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department, Chennai and also to the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department, Sivagangai
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.