SUPREME COURT: GIVE PROTECTION TO WITNESSES, AT LEAST IN HEINOUS CRIMES

Being forced to acquit a alleged murderer due to lack of evidence, the Supreme Court has ruled that criminal justice system in the country would be at crossroads unless and until witnesses were given protection to enable them to depose freely against the mighty criminals, at least in heinous crimes.

A bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and Mukundkam Sharma, while upholding the acquittal of Mangilal in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs. Mangilal decided on 6th March,2009, which was recorded by the Bombay High Court noted, "The accused persons with money and muscle power can trample any witness who dared to depose against them. The victor will be injustice and it will be a slur on the criminal justice system if it so happens''.

The bench also noted 'It needs no emphasis that in case of a gruesome murder, police protection should be given to witnesses.' The accused, who had murdered a widow and her three children, was sentenced to death by the trial court.

In the Present case, the relevant portion of the case are as below:-

It is true that four people had lost their lives and the accused does not seem to be a person of high morals, but that itself would not be a ground to record his conviction in the absence of reliable material and evidence. The circumstances highlighted by the prosecution are as follows:

1. Ilicit Relations between deceased Durgabai and accused.

2. Illicit relations between accused and Durgabai's daughter Yogita (15 years old).

3. Complaint made by deceased Durgabai on 20.7.1998 against accused regarding threat to kill.

4. Complaint made by deceased Durgabai one day before the incident regarding threat by accused.

5. Statement of PW-1 Laxman recorded under Section 164 of the Code.

6. Beating up of PW-1 Laxman by Prakash Bole to dissuade him from giving evidence in support of prosecution.

7. Police dog traced the scent from the place of incident to the house of the accused thereby connecting the accused to the ghastly murders.

8. Blood stained nail clippings of accused taken upon medical examination immediately upon arrest.

9. Recovery of blood stained jersey of accused from septic tank in the house of the accused and burnt pant at his instance.

6. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063);
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890).

The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from
circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.

7. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. state of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus:

"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the
settled law is that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and
such circumstances must be conclusive in nature.
Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and
there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence.
Further the proved circumstances must be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and
totally inconsistent with his innocence....".

8. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt
is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
established;


(2) those circumstances should be of a definite
tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the
accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form
a chain so complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probability the crime
was committed by the accused and none else; and

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt
of the accused and such evidence should not only be
consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be
inconsistent with his innocence.



9. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been
fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

10. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable
doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4)in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5)if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled asof right to be acquitted".

11. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952.

12. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed thus:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the
evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should
be in the first instance be fully established and all the
facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other
words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must
be such as to show that within all human probability the
act must have been done by the accused."




13. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC 1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The
circumstances concerned `must' or `should' and not `may
be' established;

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to
say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency;

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved; and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.



14. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003 (8) SCC 180), State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) SCC 261), Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of A.P. (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of on 7.7.2008) and Manivel and Ors. v. State of
Tami Nadu (Criminal Appeal No.473 of 2001 disposed of on 8.8.2008).

15. So far as circumstance No.4 is concerned the trial Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence about the same. The police dog traced the scent from the place of incident to the house of the accused is really no evidence in the eye of law. So far as the blood stains are concerned medical examination revealed that the ladies had `B' blood group while
boys had `O' blood group. Merely because blood stains were found on the jersey of the accused from septic tank in the house of the accused and burnt pant, that is inconsequential since as noted above his blood group is also `B'. The trial Court observed that the weapon used was stone whereas the weapon recovered from the septic tank is stated to be `Kadbatodi'.
Unfortunately, no finger printing was done.

16. It is noted that though the blood of the accused was collected the same was not sent for chemical analyzer.

17. In view of the position in law highlighted above it cannot be said to be a case where the prosecution has established a complete chain of circumstances which rules out possibility of the involvement of any other person and unerringly points fingers at the accused to be the author of the crime.

18. It needs no emphasis that in a case of gruesome murder, police protection should be given to witnesses so that they can depose freely. Unless that is done result would be that justice would be done to the victim. The accused persons with money and power can trample any witness who dares to depose against them. The victor will be injustice and it would be a
slur on the criminal justice system if it so happens. In view of the above conclusions, the appeal is dismissed.

Earlier also, similar apprehensions had been expressed by another bench comprising Justices B N Agrawal, G S Singhvi and Altamas Kabir saying that possibility of breakdown of criminal justice system in the country could not be ruled out due to the manner in which the witnesses were bought over or silenced by the accused who were rich and powerful.

Justice Pasayat, writing judgment for the bench, pronounced that unless the witnesses were provided protection, at least in heinous crimes, victims would not get justice. The Centre had earlier expressed its inability to provide protection to witnesses in all cases as in Delhi alone, 20 lakh witnesses would require protection, which was not possible.

It was conveyed by Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium to a bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan in response to a bill seeking protection to witnesses. Acquittal in criminal cases has gone up sharply due to witnesses turning hostile due to intimidation.

SUPREME COURT: GRAVITY OF OFFENCE BE CONSIDERED FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

The Supreme Court has pulled up Punjab and Haryana High Court for granting anticipatory bail to those involved in a criminal conspiracy and cheating without taking the gravity of the offence into account and also for imposing unwarranted conditions for grant of pre-arrest bail, in two separate cases.

The High Court had granted bail to a woman, Ramathal and her associates who had allegedly cheated a person to the tune of Rs 32.5 lakh. The accused had allegedly sold the property situated in Coimbatore on the basis of forged and bogus documents. The property had already been mortgaged with Punjab National Bank and a loan was also taken from another financial institution on it.

In another case viz I. Glaskasden Grace & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police & Anr. decided on 3rd March,2009, accused persons I Glaskasden Grace and his accomplices cheated a woman and her son-in-law to the tune of Rs 62,62,000 for a property located in the same city in Tamil Nadu. The complaint was filed by one B Nagalakshmi against M Mani, a property dealer and other accused of cheating her of the amount on the basis of bogus papers and false sale deed. In this case, the High Court, while granting anticipatory bail to the accused under 438 Cr. PC, directed them to deposit the title deed of property worth Rs 20 lakhs standing either in their name or in the name of third party.

In the present case, the complaint was filed by one B. Nagalakshmi W/o
Balagovindarajulu, Complainant - Respondent No. 2 contending inter alia that she approached one M. Mani, a land broker, for the purchase of house sites bearing Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Sasi West Extension, Vilakrichi Village, Sern Nagar, Coimbatore. Mani informed that K. Sakthivel is the owner of site No. 12, and other site owners reside at Tiruppur and Selvapuram. Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar and sale deed of 4 sites were shown, which reflected that the land were in the name of appellants. K. Sakthivel made assurance to the
complainant that he will arrange for the sale of the four sites to her by the site owners by making them to execute a sale deed in her favour. The total sale amount for the four sites was fixed at Rs. 62,62,000/-. As alleged when the complainant came forward to tender white money for
the entire amount, the accused Sakthivel asked her to tender white money only for Rs. 7,72,700/- and the rest in black, and represented that he would execute the sale deed in her favour only then. Accordingly, she had parted a sum of Rs. 7,72,700/- through four demand drafts and cash of Rs. 54,89,300/- to the accused, on the day of registration and got the
sale deed executed in her favour on 15.05.2007.

Subsequently, on 03.06.2007 when the respondent No. 2 attempted to put up a boundary
around the land, she came to know that the said four sites originally belonged to some other person. It further transpires that accused/appellants conspired and forged encumbrance certificate and impersonated themselves as original of the house sites, prepared a false sale deed and registered the in favour of complainant and cheated the complainant to the tune of
62,62,000/-. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered the said complaint as the First Information Report. The appellants herein apprehending their arrest in the aforesaid
registered under Sections 120B, 466, 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420 filed a petition in the High Court under Section 438 of the Code anticipatory bail.

On perusal of the submissions made and material on record, the Court passed an order granting anticipatory bail as prayed for on condition that in the event of arrest, the appellants shall be enlarged on on their depositing the title deeds of property worth Rs. 20,00,000/- either in their name or in the name of third parties and also on executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties for the to his satisfaction. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants approached this on the ground that the conditions imposed by the High Court while anticipatory bail are not only unreasonable and onerous but the also amounts to putting a fetter on the right of appellants being to bail, in terms of the order passed. The said petition filed by the appellants was placed before this whereupon inter alia the following order was passed on 13.8.2008.


"Issue notice.

However, it is made clear that, in the event, it is found that
the petitioners are not otherwise entitled to grant of an
order of anticipatory bail, this Court may pass an
appropriate order.

In the meantime, only that portion of the order whereby
conditions have been imposed for grant of anticipatory bail
other than those contained in Sub-section (2) of Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall remain stayed.

.........."

10. Notice was issued to respondents and therefore, the matter was for hearing before us on which we heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted before us the conditions imposed by the High Court while granting bail to the appellants were not only onerous but also unreasonable. It was also submitted that conditions imposed by the Court for granting anticipatory bail on their deposit of title deeds of worth Rs. 20,00,000/- standing either in their name or in the name of third parties amounts to putting a fetter on the order granting bail as the appellants are unable to satisfy the conditions are beyond their means and powers.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted the aforesaid conditions put by the Court for grant of bail to the appellants were called for and justified in the facts
circumstances of the present case. It was also pointed out that the intentionally and knowing fully well the entire position and ownership of the property misrepresented the fact and cheated the and therefore, such conditions were required to be put up for of anticipatory bail to the said persons.

13. In the light of the aforesaid submissions by the counsel appearing the parties, we have also considered the records placed before us. The facts and circumstances of the case when analysed have indicated receipt of Rs. 62,62,000/- towards sale consideration of the property alleged to be on misrepresentation of the fact by the appellants

14. It is disclosed that the said property originally belonged to some person. The allegations made are serious as it is alleged that accused/appellants conspired and forged the encumbrance certificate and themselves as original owners of the house sites and the respondent No. 2 (complainant) to the tune of Rs. 62,000/- by preparing a false sale deed and getting it registered in favour of Respondent No. 2.

15. It appears that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the High passed the impugned order with the intention of protecting the of the complainant in the matter. In our considered opinion
approach of the High Court was incorrect as under the impugned order a unreasonable and onerous condition has been laid down by the as a condition precedent for grant of anticipatory bail.

16. This Court in Amarjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in JT 2002 (1) SC 291, held as under:-

"4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the present case, we have no hesitation in co
ming
to the conclusion that the imposition of condition
to deposit the sum of Rs. 15 lacks in the form of
FDR in the Trial Court is an unreasonable condi-
tion and, therefore, we set aside the said condition
as a condition precedent for granting anticipatory
bail to the accused/appellant......."



In Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Terriotry of Delhi, reported

in (2000) 2 SCC 66, this court held that:



"4. We are unable to appreciate even the first order
passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate imposing
the onerous condition that an accused at the FIR
stage should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to be
set at liberty. If he had paid it is a different matter.
But the fact that he was not able to pay that amount
and in default thereof he is to languish in jail for
more than 10 months now, is sufficient indication
that he was unable to make up the amount. Can he
be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to
pay the amount in the range of Rs. 2 lakhs. If the
cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the
Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to
suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to his
legal remedies provided by law. Similarly if the
court was dissatisfied with the conduct of the sure-
ty as for his failure to raise funds for honouring the
cheques issued by him, the court could have direct-
ed the appellant to substitute him with another
surety. But to keep him in prison for such a long
period, that too in a case where bail would normal-
ly be granted for the offences alleged, is not only
hard but improper. It must be remembered that the
Court has not even come to the conclusion that the
allegations made in the FIR are true. That can be
decided only when the trial concludes, if the case is
charge-sheeted by the police".



17. It is not disclosed from the record that the High Court considered the entire facts of the case in proper perspective and proceeded to dispose of the prayer for anticipatory bail oblivious of the facts of the case and contrary to correct legal position with regard to law relating to grant of
anticipatory bail. The High Court should have considered the entire facts of the case including the gravity of the offence alleged and in the light thereof should have considered the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

In that view of the matter, we feel that the entire order passed by the High Court is required to be set aside and the matter to be reconsidered in accordance with law and in terms of observations made herein.

18. We accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remit back the matter to the High Court to consider the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants afresh in accordance with law taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of the offence
alleged and analysing the prayer of the appellants whether to grant or not to grant the prayer for anticipatory bail. The High Court shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law, giving reasons for its decision, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from
the date of the communication of this order.

BIHAR ANTI-CORRUPTION BILL GIVES NEW POWERS TO GOVT

Moving swiftly to rein corruption at various levels, the Nitish Kumar government in Bihar has got the state legislature to pass the Bihar Special Court Bill, 2009, which, among other things, will enable the state government to confiscate property of the errant officials even if the matter was sub-judice.

The passage of the Bill was considered in political circles here as a major step in the direction of rooting out corruption from the state. With elections to the Lok Sabha round the corner, it is expected to enhance the ruling alliance's standing among the people. The legislation will arm the state administration with more teeth in dealing with cases of corruption involving public servants on a speedy and effective basis. The bill, approved by the state legislature, will envisage creation of special courts for ensuring disposal of corruption cases within a time-frame and, most significantly, it will enable the state government to confiscate the property in the disproportionate asset (DA) case even if the matter is not judicially decided.

The bill obviously will do with away with inadequacies of existing law which accounted for the tardy disposal of the corruption cases. "What is significant, the new bill will have the provision which will enable the government to confiscate the property of the public servants in the DA case. As of now, under the existing law, the government could not confiscate the property if even a civil servant was booked in a DA case" said the minister of water resources Bijendra Yadav who piloted the bill in the state assembly. The bill seeks to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act which brings under its ambit central government employees also. The state government will therefore be required to procure the consent of the Centre on the bill which the government wants to push through at the earliest.

Incidentally, Bihar became the second state, after Orissa, to have passed such a legislation. The Naveen Patnaik government had earlier put in place a similar law with the consent of the Centre. "I don't see any reason why the Centre should have any reservation to the bill. The bill, after it becomes an act, will act as a big deterrent for the public servants who may have amassed huge property beyond their known source of income"said Sanjay Jha, the BJP MLC lauding the efforts of the chief minister Nitish Kumar for taking such an initiative which will be just the right move to rein in corruption at the government level.

According to the bill, if the government on the basis of prima facie evidence will confiscate the property of the public servant in connection with a DA case after obtaining permission from the special court.

Tatas give the world its cheapest car

Malini Bhupta Mumbai, March 23, 2009

The wait for the people's car is finally over. One year after Tata Motors unveiled its ambitious Rs 1 lakh car in New Delhi at an auto show, the company on Monday announced the commercial rollout of the Nano.

Those customers who want to have a look at the car before booking it can do so at Tata Motors showrooms and other authorised outlets, where the car will be displayed from April 1, 2009.

Says a proud Ratan Tata, chairman of Tata Sons and Tata Motors: "The Nano wasn't designed as the cheapest car. It was designed as transport at an affordable price. The Nano was born out of an emotional desire to provide transport to families who usually travel in two-wheelers and brave all kinds of weather conditions. The concept began with the question on how we could make the two-wheeler safe."

The Nano will be available to the public in three variants - Standard, CX and LX. All three variants are Bharat Stage II and III compliant. The standard model comes with three colour options, while the CX model comes with heating and air conditioning options, two-tone seats, parcel shelf, booster assisted brakes, fold down rear seat with nap rest. So those going for the base model surely cannot expect even what's given in most other cars, like a parcel shelf.

The Nano LX model is for those who want a low-cost car with bells and whistles because this one comes with all the features of the CX - body-coloured exteriors, fog lamps, electronic trip meter, cup holder, mobile charge point, front power windows and rear spoiler. The company claims that many of the features available in the Nano LX are not available in entry level small cars in the country.

Given that the Nano is a car that can easily be customised to suit any requirement, the company has launched an entire range of 'Nano' accessories ranging from mud flaps, floor mats, audio systems, steering wheel covers, mobile phones, key chains to T-shirts. Given that the wait for the car is likely to be nothing less than a year, customers can entertain themselves with Nano accessories during this wait.

Bookings will be open to consumers from April 9 to April 25. Given the car's low-cost proposition, Tata Motors has adopted a rather novel way to improve marketing and distribution of the car. The group is leveraging all its retail destinations like Westside, Tata Indicom outlets, Croma and the World of Titan showrooms to sell booking forms priced at Rs 300. These forms will be available across 30,000 locations in 1000 cities. The company has entered into an exclusive partnership with the State Bank of India to manage the booking process as it has the maximum footprint in terms of geographical locations. Customers will have the option of paying the entire booking amount or seeking finance from the preferred finance partners of Nano. For those seeking finance, the booking amount is merely Rs. 2,999 upfront.

So, will all the consumers who apply for the Nano become proud owners of the car? Not quite, says the company. Given that the production of the car at its new home in Sanand, Gujarat is unlikely to start before end-2009, currently the company is producing Nano at its Pantnagar facility in northern India, which has a capacity of 1,600 cars per month. At best, the plant cannot manufacture more than 40,000 to 50,000 cars at any given point of time. Thus, customers of Nano will have to wait at least for a year to take delivery of the car.

Given that the entire project has come about so that Tata Motors could offer affordable and yet safe transportation to Indians, the company has decided to stick to its original price of Rs 1 lakh for the first 1,00,000 customers, who will be selected randomly at the end of the booking process. Those worried whether or not Ratan Tata intends to stick to his promise of delivering the car at Rs 1 lakh needn't worry. One of the hype points of this car has been its very affordable pricing, and despite all odds Ratan Tata has stuck to his promise of delivering the people's car at Rs 1 lakh.

Last year, Ratan Tata had said that despite the dramatic rise in input costs, the car would be priced at Rs 1 lakh because a "promise is a promise".

A lot has happened between January 2008 and now, with the Nano being rendered homeless after the Singur fiasco last year. Despite the challenges, Tata Motors has given price protection to the first 1,00,000 customers of the Nano by guaranteeing them the price as quoted last year. During an interaction with the press, Tata said: "Nobody can ever commit to a price in terms of volume but we are doing that for the first 1,00,000 customers."

And those who are not among the lucky 1,00,000 can either hold on to their bookings and earn an interest of 8.5 per cent in the first year and 8.75 per cent in the second year on the booking amount or take the money back at the end of three month process. The company is using an initial public offer route to market its car in the first phase such that it gets to keep the booking amount with itself for three months and by offering competitive rates of interest, the company is also addressing its capital requirements by retaining the booking amount of customers for a longer period.

In time Tata Motors expects to produce at least a million cars per annum, going by the growing demand for automobiles in India. But from next year, Tata Motors will be able to cater to only 2,50,000 cars per annum, which can be scaled to 5,00,000 in due course of time. For now, only the lucky 1,00,000 get to drive Ratan Tata's dream car.

SUKH RAM GETS 3-YEAR JAIL IN DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS CASE

A court of Delhi has awarded three years of imprisonment to the former union minister Sukh Ram for amassing properties amounting to Rs 4.25 crore disproportionate to his know source of income between 1991 to 1996 when he was the minister of state for communications in PV Narsimha Rao led government.

Special CBI Judge VK Maheshwari also ordered the forfeiture of Rs 4.25 crore amassed by Sukh Ram besides slapping a fine of Rs two lakh on him. "A corrupt public servant is a menace to the society. Political corruption is the worst form because its consequences are far reaching. When our leaders who are the role models of the society, whose every action should be above the board, are themselves corrupt, how can we expect honesty and virtue from public at large,"said the court in its six-page terse order. The judge further said: "If public servants are corrupt, the whole structure of the society would get upset and the policies of the government, howsoever beneficial, would be adversely affected.

"The need of the hour is to check the cancer of corruption�, the court stated. It further said that the welfare of the society could be ensured only through �honest and incorrupted public servants". The order said, the CBI has proved that Sukh Ram had accumulated disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs 4.25 crore beyond his known sources of income and the former minister could not satisfactorily explain how he acquired so much wealth. The court justified the forfeiture of the illegal wealth amassed by the former minister.

"Corrupt public servants should not be allowed to reap the benefit of the crop of corruption sowed by them by corrupt means", the judge said. Sukh Ram had contended that the cash with him was meant for Congress party fund but this was refuted by senior Congress leaders. Sukh Ram was holding the key communications portfolio at the time of the telecommunication revolution in the country. "I have never seen so much of cash all my life," recalled the then CBI director Joginder Singh during whose tenure the agency conducted the searches on Sukh Ram's premises.

The court, however, granted him bail on furnishing a personal bond and surity of Rs 50,000 each. Sukh Ram later said that he will appeal against the order in Delhi High Court. The court had convicted Sukh Ram under section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. CBI had charged Sukh Ram under various provisions of the act of 1988. The agency had said that the former minister had amassed assets, both movable and immovable, to the tune of Rs 5.36 crore during 1991 to 1996 misusing his capacity as a public servant. It had registered the case on August 27, 1996 following recovery of Rs 2.45 crore from his residence at 12, Safdarjung lane here and Rs 1.16 crore from another residence at Mandi in Himachal Pradesh.