In a big blow to RJD chief and former Bihar Chief Minister lalu Prasad, the Supreme Court on Monday directed him to face separate trial in all cases related to the fodder scam where he is named as an accused.
The apex court directed the trial court to expeditiously conclude trial in all the cases against lalu and other accused persons, including former Bihar Minister Jagannath Mishra and former bureaucrat Sajal Chakravarty, preferably within nine months.
lalu faces trial in six cases relating to the fodder scam cases. He is already convicted in one that relates to illegal withdrawal of funds from Chaibasa Treasury between April 1, 1994 and January 31, 1995 to the tune of Rs 37.70 crore.
In 2013, the Jharkhand High Court had quashed the chargesheet against lalu in another fodder case relating to illegal withdrawal from Deogarh treasury to the tune of Rs 85 lakh. Two hundred and fifty vouchers and 17 fake allotment letters were prepared in this case relating to the period from 1991 to 1994. There are 38 accused persons and one of them was lalu. The CBI had appealed in the SC against that HC judgement.
The HC had held that all cases against the accused arose out of a single conspiracy and two trials for the same offence will amount to double jeopardy prohibited under Article 20(2) of Constitution and Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code.
Dealing with the CBI’s appeal challenging this order that virtually would lead to closure of all other cases against lalu and other accused, the apex bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy said, “Offences are different at different places, by different accused persons. As and when a separate offence is committed, it becomes punishable and the substantive charge which has to be taken is that of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act etc… Each defalcation would constitute an independent offence. Thus it cannot be said to be a case of double jeopardy at all.”
Setting aside the HC order, the Bench noted that the same judge took a different view when it came to another fodder scam accused RK Rana, against whom separate trials in six cases were allowed by relying on various SC decisions.
His appeal was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Bench said, “We are constrained to observe that the same learned Judge had taken a different view in Dr RK Rana’s case on the basis of same facts, and same question of law in the same cases. Judicial discipline requires that such a blatant contradiction in such an important matter should have been avoided.”
Urging courts to exercise consistency in passing orders of a similar nature, the Bench held the HC judgment to be palpably illegal and faulty. It said, “Judge has ignored large number of binding decisions of this Court while giving impermissible benefit to the accused persons and delayed the case for several years. Interference had been made at the advanced stage of the case which was wholly unwarranted and uncalled for…Such inconsistent decision-making ought to have been avoided at all costs so as to ensure credibility of the system.”
Although, lalu’s lawyers senior advocates Ram Jethmalani and Surendra Singh attacked the conduct of CBI in approaching the apex court after a long and unexplained delay of over 157 and 222 days, the Bench condoned the delay, saying, “ The CBI has failed to live up to its reputation. In the instant case, lethargy on its part is intolerable. If the CBI fails to act timely, peoples’ faith will be shaken in its effectiveness.”
The Court asked the Director CBI to decide and fix responsibility on the concerned officer for causing delay and directed the agency to follow its Manual and devise methodology to avoid delay. Although Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar blamed the delay on bureaucratic lethargy as files remained pending for clearance, the Bench expressed “surprise” on the CBI’s handling of such a “sensitive” case.
It said, “The Director, CBI cannot escape the responsibility for delay in such cases to be termed as deliberate one, which is intolerable. Being the head of the institution it was the responsibility of the Director, CBI to ensure that appeals were filed within limitation.”