Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
K. Sadagopan - Appellant
Versus
State Rep.by, Inspector of Police, Chennai & Others - Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 695 of 2022
Decided On : 13-06-2022
Money Seizure - Job Racketing - Court refuses to expedite trial for return of money
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a victim of job racketing, sought the return of Rs.10 lakhs seized during the investigation. The court rejected the application, stating that the trial must be completed before deciding on the return of the money.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner to be greedy for paying Rs.78 lakhs for a Class-I job and refused to expedite the trial for the return of the money, emphasizing that public appointments should be obtained through a selection process, not by giving bribes.
Issues: The issue revolved around the return of money seized during the investigation of a job racketing case and the petitioner's request to expedite the trial for the return of the money.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principle that public appointments should be obtained through a selection process and not by giving bribes, and that the trial must be completed before deciding on the return of the money seized during the investigation.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, and the court refused to expedite the trial for the return of the money, emphasizing the petitioner's greed and the need for the trial to be completed before deciding on the return of the money.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order of dismissal passed in C.M.P.No.702 of 2021 by learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, at Poonamalee and further direct that the interim custody of the money in the fixed deposits of the third respondent/second accused be returned to the petitioner herein, by allowing the instant revision.)
1. It is a case of job racketing and the petitioner is the victim in this case. In the course of Investigation, the police had seized some money and freezed the account of the accused. Subsequently, the petitioner by way of an application under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. sought for return of money of Rs.10 lakhs as interim custody. But the learned Magistrate, rejected the application stating that the investigation is at the nascent stage and it has to be decided only during trial.
2. The petitioner appears to be a very greedy person, as he has paid a sum of Rs.78 Lakhs for the purpose of getting a Class-I job. But, he has to wait for the trial to complete as then only the Court can return the money after clear finding in that regard. A prayer is made to expedite the trial.
3. It is to be understood by all concerned that public appointment is only by selection process and no job can be obtained by giving bribe. But in this case, it is seen that the petitioner with his full knowledge has given a huge amount of Rs.78 Lakhs for the purpose of securing job under Class -I, without any thought about that how many years a person has to work and earn that much of salary and without any guilt as to what will happen to the person, who has scored more marks. Hence, this Court is not inclined to pass any order expediting the trial and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, without any merits.
Public appointments should be obtained through a selection process and not by giving bribes, and the trial must be completed before deciding on the return of money seized during the investigation.
The court upheld the magistrate's discretion to retain seized money pending investigation, emphasizing the need for a complete inquiry before ownership claims.
Job rackets involving separate transactions with different victims constitute distinct cases even if accused are connected.
Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not guarantee reinstatement for public servants, especially if integrity concerns persist following a conviction overturned on technical grounds.
Point of law: Mere acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidate to the post concerned. If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always be inferred that ....
The acquittal in a criminal case, not being an honourable acquittal, does not automatically entitle the petitioner to reinstatement. The employer's concern regarding the integrity, honesty, and trust....
The court directed further investigation in an ongoing criminal case, contingent upon the complainant's cooperation and submission of requisite evidence, under the power to ensure a fair and comprehe....
The protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not available to public servants who commit offenses that are not connected with the discharge of their official duties or who act in excess of their autho....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
