Director Postal Services acquitted

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 13

A 23-year-old corruption case against the Director, Postal Services, has culminated in a rap by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for the trial court and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 

Acquitting the accused, Justice AB Chaudhari also set aside the verdict dated July 22, 2002, whereby the UT Special Judge sentenced Jagat Ram to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, besides imposing a fine.

Justice Chaudhari held the trial court strangely did not frame even a single point for determination. Besides, it did not accord significance to the issue of sanction. The premier investigating agency, too, “miserably failed” to prove legal sanction for launching prosecution, Justice Chaudhari asserted.

The prosecution’s case was that Jagat Ram, posted in the office of Chief Post Master General in Sector 17, demanded Rs 10,000 as bribe in two instalments from a firm for not returning material, and not claiming recovery from them as per the guarantee clause.

Out of the agreed amount, Rs 5,000 was paid on December 2, 1994. The balance was to be paid on December 5, 1994. A trap was arranged and the trap party caught the appellant while collecting Rs 5,000 from the complainant at Ghazal Restaurant, where he had called them, the prosecution had alleged.

Action was initiated after a case was registered against him on the basis of a complaint in writing by the firm’s manager and another authority. The appellant was put on trial before the trial court that finally convicted him.

Justice Chaudhari asserted it was trite law that the trial court ought to frame points for determination before recording answers. “There is a failure on the part of the trial court in the present case in that behalf”.

Justice Chaudhari added the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of money. But the trial court “gave no importance to the aspect of sanction and casually recorded the finding about the sanction, which cannot be appreciated”.

The only witness examined on sanction issue was a “desk officer”, who admitted non-production of original order received from the President. Justice Chaudhari added: “He is merely a desk officer and not the appointing authority… All the manner of proving sanction is absolutely preposterous and having no legal sanctity… It is no sanction in the eye of law for launching prosecution. 

“The prosecution ought to have examined superior officer to whom powers were delegated and who had applied his/her mind to the entire papers and then granted sanction under his signatures. However, that was not done. Thus, the prosecution miserably failed to prove any legal sanction… The trial court has not at all dealt with this aspect, which is heart and soul of a case under the PC Act”.