A special anti-corruption court in Ahmedabad on Tuesday sentenced two government officials to five years of imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on each of them in a graft case. The convicted individuals are Krushnakant Patel, a former district registrar working as a liquidator in the agriculture and cooperation department and posted as liquidator of the Municipal Cooperative Bank Ltd, and Saurabh Patel, an ad hoc employee of the bank.
In 2014, an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) team trapped the duo while they were allegedly accepting bribe money following a complaint filed by a former bank clerk for clearing his salary dues. The accused were caught leaving the bank with two bags, and Rs 48,56,400 in cash was recovered from them, which they had allegedly collected from multiple employees. They were booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act and put on trial.
Special judge B B Jadav found them guilty, awarded them a five-year jail term, and ordered them to deposit the recovered amount with the state exchequer. While convicting the accused, the court stated in its order, "It is required to note that corruption is an evil that prevails and dominates over the needy person, who approaches the authority for his legal or official work. Corruption works like termite in society and damages society at large, which is required to be viewed seriously and no liberal view is required to be adopted while awarding sentence in corruption cases. Thus, it is need of the hour that widespread corruption amongst the public servants is required to be curbed with a strong hand by all and certainly verdict of the court has greater magnitude than other means. Corruption affects not only the moral fibre of society but also destroys the economic stability and progress of country as well. A public servant, therefore, once found guilty of accepting or obtaining illegal gratification against official work, deserves no soft corner or indulgence from the courts of law."
The court's strong remarks underscore the severity with which corruption is viewed in the judicial system. The sentence serves as a deterrent to public servants who might consider engaging in corrupt practices. The case highlights the importance of vigilance and the role of anti-corruption agencies in maintaining integrity in public service.
