“Philosophy of Life Is Not to Take Bribe”: Madras High Court Convicts Customs Officer and Spouse for Amassing ₹1.1 Crore Illicit Wealth
Isabella Mariam
“It is the duty of the Court not to exercise the discretion in such a manner as a consequence of which the expectation inherent in patience, which is the finest part of fortitude, is destroyed.” With these words, the Madras High Court convicted a former Superintendent of Customs and his spouse, reversing their earlier acquittal in a disproportionate assets case. The Court imposed rigorous imprisonment and fines, and observed that “philosophy of life is not to take bribe. If anyone accepts bribe, he and his family will be ruined.”
The judgment was delivered by Single Bench of Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in a criminal appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai (Madurai Branch), under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The CBI challenged the acquittal granted to two accused by the II Additional District Judge / Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, in C.C. No.25 of 2012 by judgment dated 28 April 2018.
After examining the trial court record and legal precedents, the High Court recorded that the findings of the trial court were perverse, based on conjecture, and ignored statutory requirements. The Court convicted both respondents and imposed sentences of four years rigorous imprisonment, along with fines totalling Rs. 1 crore. The Court also ordered appropriation of bank deposits, household articles, and cash towards the fines and granted temporary leave for medical reasons to the respondents with specific surrender conditions.
The first respondent, V. Govindaswamy, joined the Central Excise Department in 1987 and later served as Superintendent of Customs in Tuticorin. His spouse, V. Geetha, was a homemaker. During a search in a separate investigation under RC 6(A)/2012 on 23 February 2012, the CBI recovered cash and documents relating to assets from their premises. A separate FIR was registered as RC MA1 2012 A 0010 against both respondents under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution alleged that the respondents amassed assets worth Rs. 1,10,95,676 between 1 January 2002 and 23 February 2012, which were disproportionate to their known sources of income by 443%. The case was taken on file by the Special Court for CBI Cases, Madurai. The prosecution examined 37 witnesses, marked 53 exhibits, and produced material objects. The defence examined four witnesses and submitted 16 exhibits.
The trial court acquitted the respondents, accepting their explanation regarding various sources of income and expenses, including rental income, dowry in the form of gold, agricultural income, sale of properties, and maturity of fixed deposits. The CBI filed the appeal contending that the trial court erred in law and fact.
The High Court examined the evidentiary and legal issues. It began by examining the statutory requirement under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and cited K. Veerasamy v. Union of India, stating: “The legislature has advisedly used the expression ‘satisfactorily account’. That means the accused has to satisfy the court that his explanation is worthy of acceptance.”
The Court rejected the trial court’s treatment of rental income and agricultural earnings as legitimate income, noting: “No documentary evidence was produced... which the trial court accepted without any material.” The inclusion of pre-check period assets was also rejected: “He never disclosed the said gold and household articles to the department, and hence the same cannot be treated as assets to be included in Statement A.”
Referring to State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu, the Court noted: “Undeclared alleged sources are by their very nature expected to be known to the accused only and are within his special knowledge.” The Court observed that the burden under the Act is strict and cannot be discharged by mere assertion or plausible explanation.
Rejecting the argument that the absence of preliminary enquiry vitiated the proceedings, the Court stated: “There is no justification to entertain the plea that the registration of the case without conducting preliminary enquiry vitiated trial in this case.”
On sanction, the Court found that authorisation was in place and the sanctioning authority competent, recording: “The Learned Trial Judge committed error in holding that the sanction was not granted by the competent authority.”
The Court then addressed broader principles relating to sentencing and discretion. Citing Baba Natarajan Prasad v. M. Revathi, (2024) 7 SCC 531, it recorded: “It is the duty of the Court to impose sentence commensurate with the gravity of offence by keeping view of the interest of the societies...”
The Court expressed concern over the societal impact of economic offences, quoting State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364: “A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice.”
Referring to Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641, the Court stated: “Unfortunately in the last few years, the country has seen an alarming rise in white-collar crimes which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure.”
The Court cautioned against arbitrary discretion: “The discretion cannot be allowed to yield to fancy or notion... when the discretion is exercised in a capricious manner, it tantamounts to relinquishment of duty and reckless abandonment of responsibility.”
It further quoted: “A Judge should never feel that the individuals who constitute the society as a whole is imperceptible to the exercise of discretion... fallacious exercise of discretion is perceived by a visible collective.”
Turning to the role of the second respondent, the Court held: “The life for the second respondent was bed of roses with the ill-gotten money and she should face the consequences... she is sentenced under Section 109 r/w 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.”
The Court also reflected on public morality, stating: “Philosophy of life is not to take bribe... What you get by dishonesty you may enjoy like the finest food, but sooner or later it will be like a mouthful of sand.”
Quoting former President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, the Court noted: “Let us start from home. The question is ‘will the daughter or son be bold enough to say to their corrupt father, please do not do that namely corruption’.”
On sentencing, the Court drew guidance from R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI, (2009) 11 SCC 737: “A just and proper sentence should neither be too harsh nor too lenient.”
The Court finally recorded that it was “unable to accept the argument... to grant minimum sentence,” but also did not award the maximum sentence considering age and illness.
The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the acquittal. It convicted both accused and imposed the following sentences:
For the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, A1 (V. Govindaswamy) was sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 75,00,000. In default, he would undergo one year of additional imprisonment.
For the offence under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, A2 (V. Geetha) was sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,00,000. In default, she would undergo nine months of additional imprisonment.
The Court directed that “the proceeds of the fixed deposit and cash balance standing to the credit of the A1 and A2 bank account and the gold jewels and household articles shall be appropriated and adjusted towards the fine amount.”
Considering a pending surgery, the Court granted temporary leave from 22.03.2025 at 10.30 am to 10.04.2025 at 3.00 pm. The Court directed: “The respondents are to surrender before the jail authority before 04.00 pm of 10.04.2025.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. C. Muthusaravanan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
For the Respondents: Mr. C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Senior Counsel for M/s. S. Sankarapandian
Case Title: State v. V Govindaswamy and anr
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:1644
Case Number: CRL.A.(MD).No.86 of 2019
Bench: Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan
[Read/Download order]
