Editor,
Have you noticed dear readers that there has been a sudden rush of activities in our state by our leaders – the rampant inaugurations, laying of foundation stones, various distributions of tins, blankets, sewing machines, etc, tournaments, festivals and what have you? Do you not wonder why the same politicians (in the ruling party/parties) have been in deep slumber for four and a half years and have awakened six months or so before the elections? Are we so ignorant to get carried away by leaders who put up a show only to return to power so they can rob us and our magnificent state for the next five years all over again? Do we not question ourselves as to how they can afford to buy luxurious cars and mansions worth crores of rupees with their salaries?
They’re even using religion as a tool now to draw naïve voters. They publicise their personal visits to churches and institutions and their meetings with the leaders of these institutions just to woo the adherent of these churches. Well, let’s not forget that huge party that was held on a certain Sunday last month for the first time in the history of our State when all the young ones chose to attend the said party instead of service/mass.
And if you haven’t yet asked these questions above, start doing so now! Trust me, you will find your answers on who to choose as your representative in the upcoming elections otherwise we are doomed forever – unending traffic, no parking lots, fallen domes, illegal mining of coal, stone, sand, etc, zero employment, teachers begging for their rightful salary, dilapidated markets…the list will go on!
Are we going to set ourselves up for another five years of mis-governance
Yours etc.,
Namrata Chettri
Via email
Landmark decision by SC on corrupt officials
Editor,
A five judge constitutional bench had delivered a landmark judgement on corrupt officials and had clarified that, “the court has discretion to raise the presumption of facts and the accused has the right to rebut the presumption but in the absence a rebuttal the presumption stands. It is generally seen that such most corrupt officials do manage the witnesses and get off scot free but after this decision the court will take into consideration circumstantial evidence. There may be cases where the witness is dead or is not traceable and police have to use their expertise to reach at a conclusive end.
The SC bench said that in the event the complainant turns hostile or has died or is unable to provide his evidence during the trial, the demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness either orally or via documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence.
“The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the public servant,” the bench said.
The apex court’s verdict came while examining the issue whether in the absence of direct or primary evidence of demand of bribe, inferential deduction of guilt of a public servant can be drawn based on other evidence. This is a much needed judgment considering that corruption by public servants in this country is overwhelmingly high.
The apex court remarked further, “We hope that the prosecution makes sincere efforts to ensure that corrupt public servants are booked since corruption is corroding the body politic like cancer. When direct evidence is unavailable owing to the death of a witness or a witness turning hostile, it is permissible to draw an inference of culpability or guilt of a public servant on the basis of other evidence adduced by the prosecution. Corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem; no aspect of governance is untouched,” remarked the bench further, noting that, “largescale corruption retards nation-building activity.”
Making it clear that some direct proof of an offer, demand or acceptance of a bribe is needed, the court has noted that if either aspect is proved through direct evidence, the remaining aspects can be proved through circumstantial evidence also. Particularly, if there is proof of the offer of a bribe and the acceptance of a bribe, the court has said that it is not necessary to prove that the bribe was demanded.
A constitution bench of justices Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and BV Nagarathna pronounced its verdict on Thursday, on a petition that had challenged the conviction on grounds that since the complainant in the case had passed away before his evidence could be recorded, there is no direct evidence of demand of bribe
It is expected that after this decision it will be difficult for corrupt officials to get off scot-free.
Yours etc.,
Yash Pal Ralhan,
Via email