ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Delhi HC issues show cause to CBI in Sukh Ram case

The Delhi high court has issued a show cause notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation on a petition filed by former communications minister Sukh Ram.

The petition seeks to quash the charges framed against Sukh Ram for allegedly extending a Rs 16.8 million benefit to a private firm for purchasing telecommunication equipment.

Justice D K Jain, in a recent order, has directed the CBI to reply by October 8, the next date of hearing.

Special Judge Ajit Bharihoke had framed charges against Sukh Ram for entering into a criminal conspiracy between April and December 1993 with co-accused P Rama Rao and Runu Ghosh to benefit Rao's firm, the Advance Radio Masts Ltd, in purchasing 2/15 multi-access rural radio system crystal versions, required for extending telecommunications to the rural areas of the country.

The judge also said that Runu Ghosh had written several favourable notes to promote ARML.

The charges were framed under section 120-b of the Indian Penal Code, and sections 13 (2), 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The judge charged the former communications minister of obtaining the amount for himself or for the co-accused.

Sukh Ram's criminal revision petition said he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case because of 'political vendetta'. The trial judge had erroneously held that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused.

The charge was not based on any documentary or other evidence on record, the former minister claimed.

He said the special judge failed to appreciate that none of the witnesses in their statements had stated, expressively or through necessary implication, that there was any malafide in the manner in which the quantity of crystal version of the 2/15 MARR was raised from 300 to 450, and the price was made equal to that of the synthesised version.

Sukh Ram also challenged the special judge's conclusion that since the offence was committed by him in his capacity as the minister of state for communications (independent charge), the sanctioning authority was the President from whom sanction was procurred by the prosecution when the chargesheet was filed, and, therefore, the Lok Sabha speaker's premission was not needed.

He said this view of the special judge was incorrect as sanction under section 197 cr.P C was taken only because there was an allegation of offence under section 120-b of the IPC. But since the substantive offence was under sections 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the PCA, and he was a public servant when the chargesheet was filed, sanction had to be taken from the Lok Sabha speaker, the petition submitted.

The special judge had failed to appreciate that the petitioner was still a member of Parliament when the chargesheet was filed. Hence, the entire prosecution was 'bad', Sukh Ram's petition claimed.

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report