Conviction of Curroption

Sukh Ram was convicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs two lakhs by a Delhi Court for causing a loss of Rs 1.68 crore to the exchequer by favouring a private party in an equipment purchase contract almost a decade ago. Designated CBI Judge V K Jain said that in the purchase of radio equipments from Hyderabad-based company Advanced Radio Masts (ARM) Ltd in 1993-94, the then Telecom Minister Sukh Ram, Deputy Director General of Department of Telecom (DoT) Runu Ghosh and company owner P Rama Rao entered into a criminal conspiracy to cause "wrongful loss to the government". The Court had sentenced Sukhram on two counts- one for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) for abusing the official position to cause wrongful gain to others and consequent loss to the government. This is how the Crime Against Women Cell of the Delhi Police interrogated a five-year-old girl called Nikita. The questioner asked Nikita to show what her father did to her. Pointing to her private parts, the child said that her father put his finger there. The questioner then asked, "Daddy puts what else?" Nikita answers: "Daddy puts his bottle." The questioner drew a sketch of a man and asked, "Where is papa's bottle? Is it on the cupboard?" Nikita pointed to the part between the legs in the drawing. The questioner asked the child to draw "papa's bottle." When the child hesitated, the questioner herself drew a penis.
The Delhi Administration filed the transcript of this interrogation before the Supreme Court in response to a petition filed by Nikita's father, Satish Mehra, challenging the charges framed against him by the trial court on the complaint of his estranged wife. The Supreme Court, expressing concern at the manner in which Nikita was interrogated, said it had no doubt that the purpose of such questions was "to lead the child unmistakably to the tutored answers." This and other equally serious infirmities in the case lent credence to Mehra's contention that his estranged wife was using their child to settle scores with him. If the trial had been allowed in spite of its farcical nature, Nikita would have been "subjected to cross-questions involving sex and sex organs." The Supreme Court therefore found no option but to quash the charges framed against Mehra.
Surprisingly, this little-known judgment, delivered way back in 1996, was invoked last week by the Delhi high court to discharge former communications minister Sukh Ram. In fact, it is the only precedent cited by Justice R.S. Sodhi in his 14-page judgment on the question of how the courts are to discharge a person. But what is the relevance of Mehra's marital squabble to the corruption case in which Sukh Ram was alleged to have caused a loss of Rs 1.68 crore to the exchequer? Sodhi gives no explanation -- and for a good reason. There is no way Mehra's case could have otherwise been passed off as a precedent for discharging Sukh Ram.
The knee-jerk reaction in the media to Sukh Ram's discharge has been to dismiss it as yet another instance of the CBI's bungling in cases involving influential politicians. But a closer scrutiny suggests that the problem lies elsewhere. If and when the CBI appeals against Sodhi's judgment, the Supreme Court is likely to overturn it. This is because Sodhi's decision is contrary to a plethora of Supreme Court judgments which are more relevant than Mehra's peculiar case of child molestation.
The facts of Sukh Ram's case, as acknowledged by Sodhi himself, are as follows: first, the government incurred a loss of Rs 1.68 crore in a telecom equipment deal. Second, the loss was on account of a decision taken by Sukh Ram to pay a higher price for that equipment to a Hyderabad-based manufacturer, P. Rama Rao of Advance Radio Masts Limited. Third, Sukh Ram's decision was contrary to a recommendation of his ministry's expert body, the Price Negotiation Committee. Fourth, the only officer who aided Sukh Ram in doing the necessary paper work was Runu Ghosh. It was on the basis of these accepted facts that the CBI filed its chargesheet against Sukh Ram, Runu Ghosh and Rama Rao accusing them broadly of criminal conspiracy to cause a pecuniary loss to the exchequer.
The trial judge, Ajit Bharihoke, ruled that the CBI had made out a prima facie case to frame charges against the accused and put them on trial. Bharihoke's order is in keeping with the settled law that at the stage of framing charges, all that the court has to ascertain is whether the documents on record "taken at their face value" disclose the offence with which the accused are sought to be charged.
Sodhi did just the opposite while quashing the charges framed by Bharihoke. Rather than taking the documents on record at their face value, Sodhi made a summary evaluation of them to see if they disclose mens rea (criminal intention) as well. His finding is, "from the material on record, it cannot be inferred that there was sinister design, malice or motive" on the part of Sukh Ram and his two co-accused to proceed against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, Sodhi's decision flies in the face of any number of Supreme Court rulings that "it is not open for the court to weigh or assess the evidence" at the stage of charging or discharging a person. The court can ascertain the guilt of the accused only after the trial is held and all the evidence from both sides is adduced.
Sodhi's premature finding seems all the more untenable given that in 1997 the Delhi high court forced the cancellation of another tender awarded by Sukh Ram to the same Rama Rao "on extraneous considerations." Though Sodhi did not take the documents on record at their face value, he would have us take his judgment at its face value and believe that there was no extraneous consideration in Sukh Ram's decision to pay Rama Rao the extra amount of Rs 1.68 crore.