“White Collar Criminals”: Madras High Court Convicts DRT Recovery Officer And Others In Corruption Case, Sends Them To 5 Yrs Imprisonment

Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the recovery officer was guilty of conscious misconduct as he had flagrantly violated all the norms and legal requirements and acted contrarily to the norms, conducting the auction without fixing proper upset price.

The court added that the recovery officer was a public officer and a trustee for the public. Thus, the court remarked that the officer was duty bound to protect, preserve the property entrusted with him. However, in the present case, the court said that the officer had entered into conspiracy and committed the offence of breach of trust.

“Recovery officer is a public officer and a trustee for public. He is duty bound to protect, preserve the property entrusted with him. Absolute disinterestedness being indispensable and therefore, he should not have any vested interest to make any profit for himself or on behalf of any person. Here, conspiracy was made by A1 [recovery officer] with the remaining accused to commit cheating by doing offence of breach of trust,” the court said.

Calling them white collar criminals, the court added that the accused were not entitled to any leniency and the same would amount to misplaced sympathy. The court added that the need and greed of people have driven them to the extent of exploiting any possible field.

“The need and greed of people have driven them to the extent of exploiting any possible field. The exploitation of the money of the other person by doing the act of fraud to get gain at the loss of other side usually form part of the white collar crimes. In the case of fraud, greedy person gains at the loss of another. This case is no exception. This case does not deserve any sympathy to grant minimum sentence,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal preferred by the CBI against the order passed by the Additional District Court for CBI cases in Madurai. The CBI's case was that the first respondent, who was working as the recovery officer of the DRT, Madurai and the second respondent, who was working as the upper division clerk in the tribunal had conspired with their relatives to obtain an auction property at lesser price. The prosecution had contended that even though there was an order of the DRAT, Mumbai, staying the auction, the officer proceeded with the auction purchase. The CBI registered the case. The trial judge, however, acquitted all the accused.

The CBI argued that it was case of bank fraud. It was submitted that he recovery officer, being the custodian of the Bank's property had conspired with his subordinates to sell the property at a lesser price in favour of his subordinate's wife by conducting public auction in a cladestine manner and caused loss to the bank.

Though the accused questioned the sanction granted for initiating prosecution, the court did not accept the contention. The court noted that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind and accorded sanction in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The accused had also argued that since he had only discharged his duty, he must be protected under the Judges Protection Act. The court however held that the judicial act should be done judicially without any shadow of suspicion and only then protection under the judges protection act would be applicable.

“Judicial Act must be done with good faith as per the law and Then only, the protection under the Act can be claimed. In this case, right from the beginning, from attachment of property till the issuance of the sale certificate, this court finds culpability in the course of fixing the upset price, calling the public auction, accepting the tender, issuing the sale certificate before the confirmation of sale…Judicial act is to be done judicially without any shadow of suspicion. “Caesar's wife should be above suspicion” is the quote,” the court said.

Thus, noting that the prosecution had proved the case against all accused beyond reasonable doubt, the court found them guilty under Section 120B read with Sections 169, 420, 409 of the IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. C. Muthu Saravanan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Senior Counsel for Mr. M. O. Thevan Kumar, Mr. A. Robinson, Mr. D. Malaichamy, Mr. G. Bhagath Singh, Mr. R. Mathialagan

Case Title: State v. S Kasimayan and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 136

Case No: CRL.A(MD).No.297 of 2019