2017 (12) TMI 970 - HC - Indian Laws

Bribery - the consideration of ₹ 6,50,000/- has been given to the respondent only to secure a job in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board - order of acquittal - Held that - As rightly pointed out by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, for any employment in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the criteria for selection is the basic qualification and eligibility. There cannot be any payment of money for securing a job. Therefore, since the appellant has paid a sum of ₹ 6,50,000/- to the respondent with enough knowledge that the money is being paid as a bribe for securing a job, it cannot be said that the consideration is a lawful one - the order of acquittal passed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore is confirmed - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act - Acquittal by Metropolitan Magistrate - Appeal against acquittal.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the respondent for failing to honor a cheque issued as repayment for money received. The appellant alleged that the respondent had promised a job in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in exchange for a payment of ?6,50,000. The respondent issued a post-dated cheque for ?6,25,000, which bounced twice due to insufficient funds. The respondent then issued a reply notice containing false allegations in response to the appellant's lawyer's notice demanding payment.

The Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent, stating that the entire transaction was tainted with illegality, thus preventing the appellant from prosecuting under Section 138 of the Act. The appellant appealed, arguing that the lower court erred in applying Section 58 of the Act and failed to recognize the existence of a legally enforceable debt due to the issuance of the cheque by the respondent.

The key consideration was whether the order of acquittal by the Metropolitan Magistrate was justified. The appellant admitted to paying ?6,50,000 to the respondent to secure a job, which was deemed illegal as job positions should be based on qualifications, not bribes. The court cited Section 58 of the Act, which prohibits claims based on instruments obtained through unlawful means or for unlawful consideration. It was emphasized that for Section 138 to apply, there must be a legally enforceable debt, which was lacking in this case due to the illegal nature of the transaction.

The court upheld the Metropolitan Magistrate's decision, stating that the appellant's payment was not a lawful consideration, as it was essentially a bribe. The judgment affirmed the principles of law applied by the Metropolitan Magistrate and dismissed the Criminal Appeal, confirming the acquittal of the respondent.