How to protect honest officers from being implicated in false cases?

CHENNAI: The Madras high court has directed the Union revenue secretary to probe the circumstances shrouding the sensational arrest of suspended additional director general of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) C Rajan in a corruption case in March last year.

"The object of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not only to prevent corruption among public servants, but also to prevent the harassment of honest among them," observed Justice V Ramasubramanian on Friday while passing orders on a petition filed by Rajan.1

According to CBI, Rajan was arrested after his driver Murugesan accepted Rs 2 lakh and an iPad on his behalf to defreeze a bank account of a Burmese national. Rajan, who did not want the court either quash the case or transfer it, sought a detailed probe into the circumstances of how he was 'trapped' by the CBI. He said he was 'fixed' because he had taken on two big corporates - one Korean and the other Indian - evading duty worth several hundred crores of rupees.

Justice Ramasubramanian, making it clear that he is giving neither a clean chit nor a certificate of good character to Rajan, however, said: "What bothers me is that this kind of trap can be organised against anyone, including an honest officer, without such honest officer having a scent of what is happening behind his back. If an honest officer is to be fixed, it can be done by the very same procedure that the CBI had followed in this case. I make it clear that I am not giving a certificate of good character to Rajan. All that I am trying to point out is that if people want to fix somebody, they can easily do it in this manner."

Pointing out that the polythene bag containing the cash and iPad was delivered to Rajan's driver in a church premises where Rajan was not even present, the judge said: "Normally one would have expected the CBI to instruct the de facto complainant to hand over the money, even if to an agent or a trusted lieutenant of the accused, only in the presence of the accused or at least when the accused is somewhere around in the vicinity."

Justice Ramasubramanian also pointed out that the DRI had not countered key allegations levelled by Rajan that he was asked not to pursue a 306-crore duty evasion case involving a corporate, and that its silence amounted to vindicating the allegations.

Noting that DRI is duty-bound to protect Rajan from harassment if he is really honest, the judge said the department of revenue, the Union ministry of finance, must probe the grievance of Rajan and investigate the circumstances surrounding the registration of the criminal case against him. If any foul play is proved, Rajan could seek appropriate remedy available in law, the judge said.

Noting that DRI is duty-bound to protect Rajan from harassment if he is really honest, the judge said the grievance of Rajan and circumstances surrounding the criminal case must be probed.

Print Page