Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand

(b) After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the Court of the Special Judge IV, CBI (AHD), Ranchi in the year 1997 and the charges were framed in the year 2000 in respect of various offences punishable under the IPC and the PC Act. The prosecution started its arguments and concluded on 10.12.2012 and the arguments advanced on behalf of 43 out of 45 accused persons got concluded on 25.02.2013. The prosecution argued its case against the appellant from 22.04.2013 to 15.05.2013 and, thereafter, the case was posted on 16.05.2013 for arguments on behalf of the appellant which continued till 31.05.2013. Considering the fact that the matter has been lingering on since 1997, the Court below passed an order dated 10.06.2013 that on the next date, if the arguments would not be advanced on behalf of the appellant, it shall be closed. Thereupon, the arguments were advanced till 18.06.2013. On 20.06.2013, a notice was issued by the trial Judge informing all the parties that written arguments may be filed on or before 01.07.2013 and judgment is to be delivered on or before 15.07.2013. At this stage, Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1619 of 2013 was filed before the High Court by the appellant for the transfer of the case from the Court of Special Judge IV, CBI (AHD) to any other court of competent jurisdiction on the apprehension that a fair and impartial trial cannot be done by the aforesaid court.

(c) The High Court, after considering the rival submissions and taking note of the fact that the case has reached the stage of delivering judgment, by order dated 01.07.2013, provided a further time of 10 days for conclusion of the arguments and dismissed the petition which resulted in the present appeal by way of special leave.

(d) On the day when the matter was posted for hearing, one Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Lallan Singh, Member of the Lok Sabha from Munger Parliamentary Constituency in the State of Bihar, filed Criminal Misc. Petition No. 14939 of 2013 seeking intervention in the abovesaid appeal. It was also stated that he was one of the writ petitioners before the High Court of Patna in a writ petition filed in public interest which led to the unearthing of the fodder scam in the State of Bihar during the period 1977 to 1996. According to him, he has been fighting all along for a free and fair investigation of the case and expeditious conclusion of the trial so that the guilty are brought to book and public confidence in the judicial system is not shaken. It is also highlighted that due to various orders of the monitoring Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand, the matter has reached its concluding stage, hence, there is no bona fide and the claim of the appellant is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice.

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 judgment. In administering justice, Judges should be able to act impartially, objectively and without any bias. The only thing which, according to us, is that the Special Judge has committed an error that after granting time for arguments, abruptly issued a notice informing the parties that the written arguments are to be submitted on or before 01.07.2013 and the judgment would be delivered on or before 15.07.2013. As observed earlier, inconvenience, if any, can be set at right by granting further time for arguments. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant for transfer of the entire case from the file of the Special Judge to any other competent court cannot be entertained. We have already highlighted that the prosecution was initiated as early as in 1997 and after prolonged trial, 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.

15) The appeal is dismissed with the above direction. In view of the above conclusion, without expressing any opinion on the maintainability, the application for intervention is dismissed.

..…….…………………………CJI.

AUGUST 13, 2013.