Unimaginable levels of corruption in India: Madras High Court slaps 4-year jail term on Customs Officer, wife

The Madras High Court recently lamented about the "unimaginable" extent to which corruption has spread in India while convicting a customs officer and his wife in a disproportionate assets case and sentencing them to four years in jail [State v. V Govindaswamy]..While referring to allegations that the customs official's wife helped him in illegally amassing property, Justice KK Ramakrishnan added that efforts to fight corruption must start from home. "In this country, corruption pervades in an unimaginable ratio. Corruption starts from the home. If the home maker is a party to corruption, there is no end to corruption. Therefore, the Hon'ble former President Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam in his address asked the youth to start fighting corruption from the home in the following words: The question is 'will the daughter or son would be bold enough to say to their corrupt father please do not do that namely corruption.' Let us start from home," the Court said. .In this country, corruption pervades in an unimaginable ratio.Madras High Court.The Court added that the customs official's wife should have discouraged her husband from taking bribes. The judge further remarked that the wife's life was made a 'bed of roses' due to ill-gotten money and that she must face the consequences for the same through imprisonment. The Court proceeded to sentence her to four years of rigorous imprisonment and also ordered her to pay a fine of ₹25 lakh. Her husband got a similar jail sentence of four years of rigorous imprisonment along with a higher fine of ₹75 lakh. The Court refrained from imposing the maximum sentence on them, considering their age and illness. .The judge, however, sounded a general word of warning against any official who engages in bribery. "Philosophy of life is not to take bribe. If anyone accepts bribe, he and his family will be ruined. Once they enjoyed the ill-gotten money, they should suffer as Jesus Christ prophesied in the following phrases: 'If you try to make a profit dishonestly, you will get your family into trouble. Don't take bribes and you will live longer. What you get by dishonesty you may enjoy like the finest food, but sooner or later it will be like a mouthful of sand.' Do not accept a bribe for a bribe makes people blind to what is right and ruins the cause of those who are innocent. The persons who gets money (dishonestly) is like a bird that hatches eggs it didn't lay. In the prime of life he will lose his riches and in the end he is nothing but a fool," the Court's March 21 sentencing order said. .If anyone accepts bribe, he and his family will be ruined.Madras High Court.The case concerned a Superintendent of the Customs Department V Govindaswamy and his wife V Geetha. In 2012, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducted a raid on their properties and recovered huge amounts of cash and property documents. The CBI alleged that Govindaswamy had amassed disproportionate wealth to the extent of over ₹1.10 crores in his name and in the name of his wife. The CBI claimed that this was 443 per cent more than Govindaswamy's known sources of income. Both the customs officer and his wife were charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. However, a trial court in 2018 acquitted both of them in the case, prompting the CBI to file an appeal before the High Court. .On March 4, the High Court concluded that the trial court had factored in insignificant loopholes and made "mountain out of molehill" by considering minute and irrelevant facts to acquit the couple.The High Court said that the trial court is not expected to plug in immaterial loopholes or focus on fanciful doubts. It is not every doubt but only a reasonable benefit of doubt that ought to be given to the accused, the High Court underscored. "It is not only the duty of the Court to acquit an innocent, it is also the paramount duty of the Court to see that a guilty man does not escape and hence extending the arms of the rule of benefit of doubt in the present case, cannot be appreciated ... The function of the criminal Court is to find out the truth and it is not a correct approach to pick up the minor lapse of an investigation, irrelevant omission and minor contradiction to acquit the accused ... The cherished principles of golden thread of proof of reasonable doubt which runs through web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubts," the High Court said. It concluded that the trial court's verdict amounted to an unmerited acquittal which had to be interfered with to prevent the administration of justice from being brought to ridicule. .Hence, the trial court verdict was set aside and the accused were held to be guilty of the alleged offences by a March 4 judgment. Their sentence was pronounced on March 21. .Special Public Prosecutor C Muthusaravanan appeared for the CBI. Senior Counsel C Arul Vadivel @ Sekar instructed by M/s S Sankarapandian represented the accused. .[Read Judgment]