Raja to face prosecution if CBI delays probe
With the CAG “indicting” former communications minister A. Raja on several counts for his alleged acts of “commission and omission” in the allotment of 2G spectrum licences, his mere resignation is not going to end his troubles but it in fact opened the way for beginning of his problems.
There are two modes of initiating prosecution against a public servant in a corruption case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, first with the government registering a case and handing the probe to its agencies, which would file the chargesheet in the court of law; and second a private person lodging a complaint with the trial court for initiating the prosecution on the basis of the material collected by him.
As Janata Party president Subramanian Sway had lodged a complaint with the PM for of sanction to prosecute Mr Raja on November 29, 2008, he on Tuesday merely sought a “speaking order” form the apex court that in view of Mr Raja resigning from the UPA government, no sanction is any more required from the PM.
“Now I don’t need the sanction as I want only a speaking order from Supreme Court to approach the competent court to file a complaint against this gentleman (Raja) to launch the prosecution,” Mr Swamy told a bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly.
He referred to half-a-dozen judgements of the Supreme Court in the famous cases like former Maharasthra CM A.R. Antulay, Punjab CM Parkash Singh Badal, former Bihar CM and railway minister Lalu Prasad, former Kerala CM K. Karunakaran on the issue of prosecution and sanction.
As per the apex court rulings in these cases, the prosecution could be launched either by the investigating agency after through probe, or by private person filing complaint to the competent court, provided he had sufficient material to support the allegations against a public servant.
The apex court in the cases of these politicians had further held that the question of sanction for prosecution would arise only in respect of the office held by a public servant where he had “indulged” in corrupt practices.
Even if he was holding another public office, then the question of sanction would not arise.
In view of these rulings, even if Mr Raja is taken back in the government and holds the charge of any other ministry than the telecom, it would not come to his rescue to provide him the “protective cover” of sanction, Swamy pointed out from the SC rulings.
Neither his status as an MP would come in the way of launching the prosecution against Mr Raja, Mr Swamy said wile seeking the “speaking order” from the apex court so that he could swiftly move before the competent trial judge with his complaint.
Post new comment