Let's examine this. What is an appointment? Who is appointee? What is a legal appointment? What is an illegal appointment? What should be taken into consideration before appointment? How should budget be managed? If this is taken into consideration, than all legislators appintment is illegal appointment? How much remuneration is exhausted by them and for their maintenance? What does public get? Can this be managed differently? Take a look at budget. I dispute it. We don't need sanction for prosection for minister for obvious crimes and another yard stick for justice for others. Criminal offences of obvious crime is applicable to ministers as well as every day people. The concerned judge need to take a look at budget. How should you manage budget? Criteria needs to be first set for legislators. What is a good human character? What is a good human behavior? Who set these rules? ------------------------------------ Let's examine this. What is an appointment? Who is appointee? What is a legal appointment? What is an illegal appointment? What should be taken into consideration before appointment? How should budget be managed? If this is taken into consideration, than all legislators appintment is illegal appointment? How much remuneration is exhausted by them and for their maintenance? What does public get? Can this be managed differently? Take a look at budget. The special judge, anti-corruption, Jammu, B L Bhat, Thursday acquitted the former minister of state for Health and Family Welfare, Govind Ram Sharma, but convicted the then director, Health Services, Jammu, Dr M P Gupta, in an illegal appointments case. In his 33-page judgment, Bhat observed that in absence of sanction for prosecution of the accused minister, the entire exercise of trial against him stood vitiated. I dispute it. We don't need sanction for prosection for minister for obvious crimes and another yard stick for justice for others. Criminal offences of obvious crime is applicable to ministers as well as every day people. It said that the 33 appointments made had created a liability on the state exchequer. The concerned judge need to take a look at budget. How should you manage budget? The appointment orders were issued by the then director, Health Services, just three months before he demitted his office on attaining the age of superannuation. After hearing the defense counsels for both the accused and the prosecution, the court acquitted the then minister, Sharma, from the charges leveled against him but convicted the then director, Gupta, and awarded him one year imprisonment and fine of Rs 10,000. In his arguments, the chief prosecuting officer, appearing for the Vigilance Organization, Jammu, Purushotam Sharma, said the court had taken cognizance against the accused former minister in terms of the provisions under section 190 CrPC and it was empowered to do so. The court observed that admittedly the accused Sharma was the minister of state with independent charge at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. Being a member of the state legislature and of the council of ministers, he was a public servant in terms of the provision of section 2 (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 6 of the Act lays down the mandatory provisions in terms whereof previous sanction for prosecution was a sine-qua none for taking cognizance of offence under PC Act against a public servant. Admittedly, the investigation had not arraigned Sharma as an accused and his role was not proved. In terms of the order dated September 22, 2003, the then MoS was arraigned as accused after holding that he too was privy to the commission of the crime imputed to the accused director. Counsel for Sharma argued that since no material establishing complicity of the accused in the alleged crime had been unearthed by the investigation and no sanction for prosecution had been obtained, taking of cognizance against him was bad. He said that even if the court was of the opinion that there was some material pointing towards his complicity, it should have directed further investigation and not taken cognizance of offence u./s 5(2) PC Act against him. On August 31, 2009, the Anticorruption court, Jammu, had convicted the former director in another case of illegal appointments. The VOJ had registered a case against Sharma and Gupta following a complaint alleging that the then director, at the behest of the then MoS, Health and Family Welfare, had appointed more than 200 persons as pharmacists, junior assistants, drivers and other class IV workers in contravention of recruitment rules without advertising the openings. It was alleged that no criteria was followed in making the appointments. Criteria needs to be first set for legislators. What is a good human character? What is a good human behavior? A case was registered u/s 5(2) PC Act 2006 read with section 161, 120-B RPC. The investigation revealed that the accused during his tenure from May 1997 to ending March 1998 as director appointed 33 candidates illegally in gross violation of rules allegedly on the endorsement/recommendations made on the applications of candidates by the then MoS, Pt Sharma throwing all norms to winds and making the appointments illegally with ulterior motives. After investigation, the challan was produced in the court. Who set these rules?