In a case of refusal to setting aside the conviction of a woman, a co-accused, in a disproportionate assets case filed against her husband, a former police officer the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has observed that corruption starts from home and if the home-maker is a party to corruption, then there won’t be any end to it.
Taking Bribe Can Affect Your Spouse
It appears that the justice K K Ramakrishnan refused to set aside the one-year prison term which was earlier awarded by a Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Cases in Trichy to Deivanayaki in the case filed in 2017 against her husband Sakthivel, a former sub-inspector.
During this trial Sakthivel died but his wife was convicted.
Further, the court said, “It is the duty of the wife of a public servant to discourage her husband from receiving bribes. The basic philosophy of life is to stay away from bribes. If anyone accepts one, he and his family will be ruined. If they enjoyed the ill-gotten money, they would suffer. Corruption in this country is unimaginably pervasive. Corruption starts from home and if the home-maker is a party to corruption, there is no end to corruption. The life of Deivanayaki was a bed of roses because of the ill-gotten money, hence she should face the consequence — namely conviction.”
How Did This Happen?
This all started when Trichy DVAC police have registered a case against Sakthivel and his wife under Prevention of Corruption Act on the charge of accumulation of assets over and above his known sources of income which was estimated at Rs 6.77 lakh during the check period of January 1, 1992, to December 31, 1996, as per the court’s observation.
It appears that Sakthivel died during the pendency of the case.
Now, the court convicted his wife and sentenced her to one-year imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 1,000.
The factors that proved that his assets were more than his income were not considered by the trial court, said her counsel in an appeal to the Madras HC.
It seems that the High Court declined to accept the arguments and confirmed her conviction.
Adding, “The punishment imposed by the trial judge deserves no interference. So the bail bond executed by her is hereby canceled.”
