Demand, acceptance and recovery’ – these are the three factors essential in a corruption case where a bribe-taking public servant is arrested and prosecuted, the Madras high courthas said while lamenting that even a special legislation like the Prevention of Corruption Act had failed to put fear in the heart of corrupt babus. Justice B Pugalendi made the observation while confirming three-year jail term and 1 lakh fine imposed on P V Reddy, a senior divisional engineer of southern Railway, by a special court for CBI cases in Madurai. Reddy was caught accepting 1 lakh as bribe from a railway contractor in 2008.
Elections 2020
Chennai CITI Bank IFSC Code
Chennai Axis Bank IFSC Code
SBI Chennai IFSC Code
TOINO ADS
OPEN APP
CITYAnti-corruption law has failed to stop corrupt bureaucrats: Madras high court
TNN | Updated: Jan 31, 2020, 11:33 IST
AA
12
Representative image
CHENNAI: ‘Demand, acceptance and recovery’ – these are the three factors essential in a corruption case where a bribe-taking public servant is arrested and prosecuted, the Madras high courthas said while lamenting that even a special legislation like the Prevention of Corruption Act had failed to put fear in the heart of corrupt babus.
REMOVE ADS
Justice B Pugalendi made the observation while confirming three-year jail term and 1 lakh fine imposed on P V Reddy, a senior divisional engineer of southern Railway, by a special court for CBI cases in Madurai. Reddy was caught accepting 1 lakh as bribe from a railway contractor in 2008.
“Corruption has ruined the system. Despite implementation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, corruption has not been eradicated and it has become a common affair. Nobody is having the sense of fear to the prevailing Act. Higher officials must act as an example to their subordinates in discharge of their duties. If the higher officials themselves commit mistakes, then they lose their morale to question their subordinates. Ultimately, the system fails,” Justice Pugalendi said.
According to the prosecution, Reddy was working as senior divisional engineer in Southern Railway Trichy during 2005-08. He was the head of civil engineering section for Trichy division and also authorised for tender calling.
The complainant was a civil contractor enlisted with the railway. When the contractor approached the officer for approval of excess work done by him while executing a contract, the accused had demanded 3 lakh to grant approval.
As the complainant expressed his inability to pay 3 lakh, the accused reduced it to 1 lakh. However, the contractor approached the CBI and registered a complaint against Reddy.
