The Madras High Court in the case K.Sadagopan v. State Rep.by, Inspector of Police and ors observed and dismissed a petition seeking to provide an interim custody of Rs 10 lakh, which is seized in a job racketing case. The Madras High Court bench comprising of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy expressed his displeasure at the way people of how they were willing to pay huge amount of money for getting a job. The bench enunciated those public appointments were made through a selection procedure and it cannot be obtained by paying bribes. The bench further highlighted that such persons does not realise that it took years of work to earn such salaries and gave no though to the plight of persons who scored more marks than them.
The Court in its order stated:
Through all the concerns it is to be understood that the public appointments is only done through selection process and no job can be obtained by giving bribe. But the present case, it is 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 and without any thought about that how many years a person has to work and earn that much of salary and the accused without any guilt as to what will happen to the person, who has scored much more marks. However, the court inclined to pass any order expediting the trial and hence, the Court concluded that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner was a victim of Job racketing and the police in the course of investigation has seized some amounts and had frozen the accounts of the accused. An application was filled by the petitioner under section 451 and section 457 for a return of Rs. 10 lakh as interim custody of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, the application was rejected by the Magistrate who held that the investigation was at the nascent stage and that the matter could be decided only during trial. However, the petitioner approached the high court seeking to quash this impugned order and to direct interim custody of Rs. 10 lakhs, the return of money in the account of the accused.
The Court remarked while dismissing the petition that the petitioner appeared to be a greedy person who paid a sum of Rs.78 lakh for getting a Class-I job. Furthermore, the petitioner approached the court for the return of money without even waiting for the trial to be completed as only then a clear finding could be arrived at.