Probe source of bribe, says Madras High Court

Chennai: Observing that the one who receive bribe alone cannot be punished, but the person who gives bribe is also to be blamed, Madras high court said to put an end to this offence the income tax department should probe into assets and liabilities of such offenders and ascertain their assets from which they have paid bribe.

Justice S. Vaidyanathan passed the order while dismissing an anticipatory bail petition from an accused, who apprehended arrest in connection with a case relating to cheating a complainant after collecting Rs 18 lakh for procuring an MBBS seat.

“This court feels that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the real facts, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. The police must ascertain as to how the de-facto complainant was able to part with huge sum for getting a medical seat,” the judge added.

The court directed the registry to mark a copy of the order to the Commissioner of Income Tax Department, Nungambakkam, to enable him to act in the above regard and to ascertain the truth so as to bring the culprits to book.

Prosecution’s case was that the accused along with two other accused were alleged to have received Rs 18 lakh from the de-facto complainant by promising her  MBBS seat and thereafter, they neither procured MBBS admission, nor returned the money they received.

Opposing the plea for advance bail, government advocate submitted the investigation in this case was at preliminary stage and the prosecution has to examine some more witnesses and hence at this stage, if the petitioner was enlarged on anticipatory bail, there was every possibility for him to tamper the evidence and threaten the witnesses and he will not co-operate with the investigation, he added.

The judge said since the petitioner along with other accused, collected money and the petitioner has his share in it, and as serious allegations has been made against the petitioner and other accused, this court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.