Sakina Tashrifwala
Published on: September 12, 2022 at 20:47 IST
Five people were recently condemned by a Karnataka court to seven years in prison and fined a total of five crores (Rs. 1 crore) each for stealing funds from the Mandya Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
The judge stated that the act should be taken seriously in light of the harm done to the government exchequer while refusing to be lenient in sentencing the guilty.
“The said act cannot be considered as a minor act and even the court has to take a serious note of the offences committed by them.”
Since the loss to the government exchequer must be made up, it was recognised that a sufficient fine must be levied.
As a result, the MUDA received compensation totalling Rs. 5,02,00,000 from the total fine of Rs. 5,02,75,000.
The accused were discovered to have planned a scheme to defraud MUDA of 5 crores, and the proceeds were initially deposited in one of their accounts before being transferred to the others.
One of the accused was in charge of the accounts section at MUDA while working there as a First Division Assistant (FDA).
They were found guilty of crimes under both the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. But the accused pleaded for clemency in punishment, citing health issues.
The public prosecutor, on the other hand, pleaded with the Court to take the seriousness of the offences into account because economic crimes damage a nation’s economy.
It was therefore suggested that the punishment should be appropriate for the crime committed and serve as a deterrent to society.
The Court considered the fact that one of the accused was trusted with public property while performing a public function, but he betrayed the trust placed in him and damaged the reputation of the general public.
It was also mentioned that the action was carefully thought out and purposeful.
The Court refused to show mercy since it was determined that loss was sustained by society as a whole as a result of the accused’s actions.
Additionally, it was noted that, given the nature of the offence, their poor condition of health could not be a mitigating factor.
