SCAM/CORRUPTION – 2010 - Indian Social Institute

eality that such a class does exist is there for all to see and is evidenced by regular and alarming
incidents such as this one.'' One aggravating circumstance the bench failed to cite while deciding the
sentence was the fact that Santosh had stalked Mattoo for two years, forcing her to lodge complaints with
the police. Further, he raped and murdered her even after he had given undertakings to the police that he
would leave her alone. On the issue of conviction, the apex court upheld the conclusions reached by the
high court on Santosh's guilt, based on a conclusive DNA test that proved rape and injuries suffered by
the dead girl from a helmet that belonged to him. The Supreme Court also said that Mattoo's complaints
to the police established the motive and eyewitness accounts proved that Singh was spotted near her
house in Vasant Kunj on the day of the crime. When the high court reversed the acquittal in 2006, it came
against the backdrop of public outrage over the miscarriage of justice in the Jessica Lall murder trial
where Manu Sharma, son of wealthy politician Venod Sharma, had been acquitted. On the CBI's longpending
plea for early disposal, the HC fast-tracked the proceedings in the Mattoo case. Another case
that sprang to life at that time was the murder of Nitish Katara by Vikas Yadav, son of controversial
politican D P Yadav. Thus, the cases of Jessica Lall, Priyadarshini Mattoo and Nitish Katara had captured
popular imagination as symbols of the rich and influential getting away with murder. (TOI, 7/10/2010)
Nothing moves without money: Supreme Court
Stating that “nothing moves without money”, the Supreme Court has expressed concern over the growing
corruption in government machinery, particularly in the Income Tax, Sales Tax and Excise departments.
“It is very unfortunate that there is no control over corruption in the country. There is rampant corruption
particularly in the department of Income Tax, Sales Tax and Excise Department. Nothing moves without
money,” a Bench of Justices Markandeya Katju and T. S. Thakur said. The apex court made the remarks
while admitting an appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the acquittal of an
Income Tax Inspector Mohanlal Sharma by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Additional Solicitor
General P. P. Malhotra, appearing for the CBI, submitted that Sharma was acquitted by the High Court
despite the trial court holding him guilty of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000 from a person.
He was earlier sentenced to one year RI by the trial court. In a sarcastic vein, the Bench said “why not
government legalise corruption so that a specific amount is fixed for every case. Let us say if a man
wants his case to be settled, he can be asked to pay Rs. 2,500. That way every individual will know how
much bribe he has to pay. There is no need for any bargaining by the official and the people will also
know beforehand how much they have to pay without any worry.” “Poor Government officials, we can’t
blame them also because of the growing inflation,” the Bench said. Sharma, who appeared in person,
denied the allegation and said he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. The Bench was not
impressed with the argument and reiterated that corruption, particularly, was more rampant in the Income
Tax, Sales Tax and Excise Departments. The Bench then sought the views of senior counsel K. K.
Venugopal on its suggestion to legalise corruption in the country. However, the senior counsel said that it
would be better if good moral values are imparted in every school of the country as part of their
curriculum so that at least the future generation is free from the menace of corruption. The case of the
CBI was that Sharma had initially demanded an amount of Rs. 25,000 from the person failing which he
threatened to re-open his assessment. The deal was allegedly struck finally for Rs. 10,000, when he was
caught by the officials, the agency claimed. In another case, the Bench also ticked off Senior Counsel
Venugopal after he appeared in a cheque bounce case for an accused. “Mr Venugopal we did not expect
at least a counsel of your stature to appear for such people. Mahatma Gandhi was also an advocate, but
he never appeared for such people,” Justice Katju observed. The senior counsel initially shot back,
saying, “My Lord, in that case I would be losing most of my clients!” a remark that sent the entire court hall
into a burst of laughter. Later, Mr. Venugopal said he would definitely keep the court’s suggestion in mind
while appearing in future cases. (The Hindu, 10/10/2010)
Man beaten to death for Rs 10
JAIPUR: Irked over the refusal of a daily wager to contribute Rs 10 as donation for Navratra celebrations,'
a group of men beat him to death in Mangalpura crossing of Jhalawar town on Monday morning. The
deceased, Tej Karan, was a native of Anta town of Baran district and was working as a labourer in
Mangalpura area of Jhalawar. According to the police, Tej Karan was going to work along with his
younger brother Bablu when a few persons stopped him and asked to drop cash' in donation box, which
they claimed was being collected for Navratra celebrations. "Tej Karan told them that he was a daily wage
labourer and did not have enough money to donate for celebrations," said an official. However, the
miscreants refused to listen to his pleadings and asked him to drop atleast Rs 10 to avoid
"inconvenience". Karan, however, made it clear that he cannot afford to cough out money due to his poor
financial condition. Irked over the refusal, they punched and kicked him to the extent that he collapsed on