BENGALURU: Fifteen years after being booked for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, a former employee of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court (MMTC) was sentenced, at the age of 69, to five years of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 7.79 lakh by a special court.
Accused M R Rangaswamy retired as second division assistant attached to the MMTC. He was booked based on a complaint filed by the registrar of the City Civil Court with the Lokayukta police in April 2009 for allegedly possessing disproportionate assets (DA) during the check period from June 1982 to April 2009.
Judge Nandeesha R P of the Special Court for the trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act passed the order sentencing Rangaswamy for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, as he was found in possession of DA of Rs 7.78 lakh for which he could not satisfactorily account. The DA was 98.14 per cent to his known source of income in the check period.
BENGALURU:“The offence committed by the accused has an effect on society as he was a court employee,” the court observed.
The counsel of the accused argued that Rangaswamy, 69 years old and retired, has suffered due to the delay in the conclusion of the trial for nearly 15 years, during which he regularly attended the court, and pleaded for a lenient view.
Countering this, the public prosecutor argued that the accused committed a heinous crime, which affected society, and the regular appearance of the accused during the trial and his conduct before the court are not grounds to show leniency in the punishment.
The court said the accused was found to have purchased properties and sites. It is unfathomable how the accused, being a second division assistant, could purchase sites and properties and that too without intimating the expense to his higher authorities as required under the applicable rule.
The explanation offered by the accused on how he acquired the large properties is neither plausible nor satisfactory. Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution has established the criminal misconduct of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the court observed.