About Rs 4 crore in cash and jewellery were seized from Sukh Ram's residences and from bank lockers in the names of his family members, a sum few can dream of earning in a lifetime. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the onus of proving that the sum has been acquired through legal means lies with Sukh Ram.
A senior CBI official said the charge of Sukh Ram giving repeat orders to Hyderabad-based ARM for the supply of telecom equipment would have been a better case if the agency could establish a quid pro quo in the deal. With the CBI reportedly looking into all telecom deals in the last few years, the quid pro quo factor could bolster the prosecution case.
The official elaborated that in the hawala case, former Union minister Arif Mohammed Khan is alleged to have received money in various deals. The CBI, which has recorded the statements of over 175 witnesses to support the prosecution charge, has also stated in the chargesheet that the money was used for investment in movable and immovable property. There is a similar case against former food minister Kalpanath Rai.
Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a person offering bribes cannot be booked unless the person who has accepted the bribe is booked.
In such a case, the main accused are the government officials who cause pecuniary gain to themselves in discharge of official functions, while the private individual is the co-accused.
Since the former minister is the main accused, there is virtually no chance for him to turn approver, as is being talked about. Anyway, the discretion to grant the status of an approver to any person lies with the court.
A P Jain, a criminal lawyer at the Tis Hazari courts, said instances of the main accused turning an approver in a criminal case are rare. Telecom industry sources said the former minister had placed orders for digital transmission analysers at prices higher than the lowest bidders. Nearly 90 per cent of the equipment was supplied by ARM, Sinclaire Electronics