At the fag end of the fodder scam trial, RJD chief lalu Prasad Yadav’s attempt to shift the Special CBI judge out of the case alleging bias fell flat on Tuesday with the Supreme Court dismissing his plea and setting a timeframe for the conclusion of trial held at Ranchi.
An accused in the fodder scam, lalu had approached the SC when the trial court judge decided to conclude the hearings and set a date for pronouncement of judgement on July 15 this year. lalu accused the judge of bias by pointing out he was related to Bihar’s Education Minister PK Shahi, who belonged to his rival party — Janata Dal (United). lalu even produced photographs showing his political rival’s bonhomie with the family of the judge’s sister.
The Bench headed by CJI P Sathasivam said, “In our view, in a matter of this nature, it is not at all desirable to shift the case to some other court at the last hour.”
On the allegation leveled by lalu, it said, “Merely because some of the distantly related members were in the mid of the present Chief Minister, it cannot be presumed that the presiding judge would conclude against the appellant.”
This case related to illegal withdrawal of a sum of `35.66 crore from the Treasury of Chaibasa by the officials of Animal Husbandry Department, Bihar Government in connivance with the politicians and suppliers in the year 1994-95 which culminated into the registration of a FIR in 1996.
Although, initially the apex court had stayed the proceedings before the Ranchi court, on hearing both counsels for lalu and CBI and an intervenor, JD(U) MP Rajeev Ranjan Singh alias lallan, the Bench questioned why lalu had no problem with the trial which proceeded before the judge in question since November 2011.
The Bench also comprising Justices Ranjana Desai and Ranjan Gogoi found merit in the argument made by lallan. “If the appellant really had any apprehension in his mind, this could have been raised at the earliest point of time and not after the conclusion of evidence and arguments, particularly, on the eve of pronouncement of judgement.”
Moreover, the long delay in trial was another factor that weighed with the Court to yield to lalu’s demand. “We have already highlighted that the prosecution was initiated as early as in 1997 and after prolonged trial (of 16 years), the matter has reached final stage, namely, pronouncement of the decision. In our view, in a matter of this nature, it is not at all desirable to shift the case to some other court at the last hour.”
According to the bench, the Special Judge committed an error to abruptly issue a notice informing the parties that the written arguments had to be submitted before July 1 and the judgement to be delivered by July 15. The Bench allowed CBI to complete its arguments within five days and gave the accused including lalu another 15 days. It directed the trial judge to pronounce decision as early as possible.