The conduct of the CBI on Tuesday once again raised eyebrows as the agency did not oppose in Supreme Court the plea of RJD chief lalu Prasad, who is seeking transfer of the judge presiding over the fodder scam trial at Ranchi.
After a junior advocate appeared for the CBI and told the court he had no instructions to take a stand in the matter, the bench indicated it would entertain lalu’s request and transfer the case to another judge. The court, however, gave CBI time till August 6 to respond.
The trial in the case was stayed by the apex court two weeks ago after lalu alleged that the trial judge could be biased against him because he was closely related to a sitting Minister in the Nitish Kumar Cabinet. The court had asked the CBI to respond to the allegation and indicated that the stay order would go if the charges were found to be false.
On Tuesday, the CBI was represented by a junior lawyer who is an associate working in the office of Attorney-General GE Vahanvati. Incidentally, in the coal scam the CBI had received flak from the apex court for consulting the AG and tweaking the status report on the coal scam investigation on the latter’s recommendation.
The bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked the agency whether the evidence in the case had been recorded. “If the evidence had already been recorded, can it (the case) be shifted to another judge,” the bench asked the agency.
CBI lawyer Rohit Sharma, who initially claimed he appeared for the State of Jharkhand, later clarified that he represented the agency as well. Responding to the query put by the court, he said, “I have no instruction in this regard.”
The lone opposition was raised by the petitioner in the fodder scam case Rajiv Ranjan Singh alias lallan, who is currently a Member of Parliament from JD(U), the ruling party in Bihar.
Appearing for lallan, senior advocate Ranjeet Kumar pointed out that since 2011 the trial judge in question had heard the matter for 275 days. “Not a single day did he (lalu) opposed the judge hearing the matter,” Kumar said.
Appearing for lalu, Ram Jethmalani intervened to point out that he only became apprehensive after the judge fixed the matter for decision on July 15.
Citing public interest involved in finishing the trial at the earliest, the bench said: “With all that has happened, some kind of a subtle influence could have been there on the judge.”
As a way forward, it placed two options before the petitioner, CBI and lallan. “We will either ask the Patna High Court to nominate a trial judge or if a name is acceptable to all, we will direct the matter to be sent to that judge.”
lallan’s counsel said that the 16-year-old trial got delayed as the 45 accused in the case merrily argued the case to suit their convenience. The bench decided to place a time-frame for the accused to be examined, cautioning at the same time that if the trial court can exercise control over proceedings, matters may finish within days.