LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
Bench: P SATHASIVAM,RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: SLP(Crl) No.-005513-005513 / 2013
Diary number: 20750 / 2013
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1166 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5513 of 2013)
Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav .... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand .... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
P.Sathasivam, CJI.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1619 of
2013 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by
the appellant herein for transferring the case being R.C. No.
20(A)/1996 from the Court of Special Judge-IV, CBI, (AHD),
Ranchi to any other Court of competent jurisdiction.
1
Page 2
3) Brief facts:
(a) This appeal relates to illegal withdrawal of a sum of
Rs.35,66,42,086/- from the Treasury of Chaibasa by the
officials of Animal Husbandry Department, Government of
Bihar in connivance with the politicians and suppliers in the
year 1994-95 which culminated into the registration of a First
Information Report (FIR) being R.C. No. 20(A)/1996 dated
27.03.1996 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477,
477A, 201, 511 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 ( in short ‘the IPC’) and Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (in short ‘the PC Act’) against a number of accused
persons including the appellant herein.
(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
2
Page 3
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
3
Page 4
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
4
Page 5
devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed in the
interest of justice.
(e) Serious objection was raised by the appellant and the
respondent-State through its Investigation Officer-CBI about
the role of the intervenor in a criminal trial.
4) Heard Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for
the appellant, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General
for the respondent-CBI and Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned
senior counsel for the intervenor.
Submissions:
5) Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the
appellant, at the foremost, submitted as under:-
(i) The conduct of the trial Judge gives a reasonable
apprehension of not getting fair justice. In other words,
according to him, from the conduct of the trial Judge, it is
obvious that fair opportunity was not being given to the
appellant to defend himself and there is every likelihood that
he would not get justice, hence, it is a fit case for transfer;
and
5
Page 6
(ii) The younger sister of the Presiding Judge of the CBI,
viz., Mrs. Minu Devi, is married to Mr. Jainendra Shahi, the
cousin of Mr. P.K. Shahi, who, besides having appeared for
the CBI, is a political rival of the appellant in the Public
Interest Litigations and presently a Minister in the
Government of Bihar. In such circumstance, according to Mr.
Jethmalani, because of the relationship and closeness, the
appellant may not get fair justice at the hands of the
Presiding Judge.
6) On the other hand, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned
Solicitor General appearing for the CBI, after adverting to the
factual scenario, left the issue to the decision of this Court,
however, he strongly pointed out about the maintainability of
the application for intervention.
7) Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the
intervenor, by placing the factual details starting from the
taking of cognizance, filing of the charge sheet, various dates
on which the evidence was led in by both the sides and the
arguments advanced submitted that it is not a fit case for
transfer at this juncture, particularly, when the Special Judge
6
Page 7
is going to pronounce the judgment shortly. He also
submitted that the applicant has filed several petitions
before the High Court as well as in this Court highlighting
various issues relating to ‘fodder scam’.
Discussion:
8) With regard to the first submission relating to the
apprehension in the mind of the appellant that he may not
get fair and impartial trial, it is relevant to point out that
cognizance of various offences punishable under the IPC and
the PC Act was taken against the accused persons in the
year 1997 and charges were framed against them in the year
2000. It is further seen that the prosecution took 13 years in
examining the witnesses. The prosecution argued its case
against the present appellant from 22.04.2013 to 15.05.2013
and thereafter the case was posted on 16.05.2013 for
arguments to be advanced on behalf of the appellant on day-
to-day basis which continued till 31.05.2013. It is the
grievance of the appellant that on 10.06.2013, an order was
passed by the Special Judge stating that on the next date, if
7
Page 8
the arguments would not be advanced on behalf of the
appellant, the case will be closed. Thereupon, the
arguments were advanced for 5 more days 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. On going through all the details
including the Order Sheet of the Fodder Scam case, we are of
the view that the procedure adopted by the Special Judge
cannot be faulted with except one aspect which was also
noticed by the High Court intimating the parties in the midst
of the arguments and compelling them to file written
arguments on or before 01.07.2013 and judgment to be
pronounced on 15.07.2013. Except the said recourse, which
is not in consonance with the scheme of the Code,
particularly, in a criminal trial, considering the magnitude of
the case pending since 1997, the conduct of the Judge
cannot be faulted with. In view of the same, this Court is
inclined to provide further time for the accused as well as
prosecution to complete their arguments, if they so desire.
8
Page 9
9) Coming to the second apprehension about the
closeness of the trial Judge with the person in power, it is
pointed out that Mr. P.K. Shahi, Ex-Advocate General of the
State of Bihar, presently a Minister in the Government of
Bihar is a close relative of the trial Judge. While elaborating
further, Mr. Ram Jethmalani submitted that the sister of the
Presiding Judge, Mrs. Minu Devi, is married to Mr. Jainendra
Shahi, grand son of Late Fulena Shahi, whose one of the
brothers was Late Hari Shankar Shahi and Mr. P.K. Shahi
happens to be the grand son of Late Hari Shankar Shahi and
as such Jainendra Shahi, husband of the sister of trial Judge
happens to be the cousin of Mr. P.K. Shahi, who on account of
his defeat in a Parliamentary election at the hands of the
candidate belonging to the appellant’s party is quite anxious
to settle the score by making his influence to get the
appellant convicted so that there would be a political death
of the appellant. With regard to the above aspect, Mr.
Jethmalani heavily relied on a decision of this Court in
Manak Lal, Advocate, vs. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi &
Ors., AIR 1957 SC 425 and submitted that with regard to
9
Page 10
bias, proof of actual prejudice is not necessary. This Court, in
paragraph 4 of the judgment, enunciated the following
principles:
“4……….It is well settled that every member of a Tribunal that is called upon to try issues in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings must be able to act judicially; and it is of the essence of judicial decisions and judicial administration that Judges should be able to act impartially, objectively and without any bias. In such cases the test is not whether in fact a bias has affected the judgment; the test always is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the Tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the Tribunal. It is in this sense that it is often said that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done……..”
10) In order to substantiate the contention relating to bias,
namely, the Presiding Judge would be influenced by his
brother-in-law or even by his sister or Mr. P.K. Shahi to go
against the interest of the appellant, Mr. Ram Jethmalani,
learned senior counsel, placed some photographs taken on
13.01.2013 during the visit of Hon’ble the Chief Minister of
Bihar Shri Nitish Kumar to the ancestral house of Shri P.K.
Shahi along with the entire Shahi family at House No. 147
Village Angota Block, Nautan P.S., District Sivan. By showing
these photographs, it is argued that there is a reasonable
10
Page 11
apprehension of real likelihood of bias on the part of the
Presiding Judge. Apart from the relationship, as mentioned
by the appellant, we were also shown the genealogical table.
In our opinion, merely because some of the distantly related
members were in the midst of the present Chief Minister, it
cannot be presumed that the Presiding Judge would conclude
against the appellant. Admittedly, the above criminal
proceedings were heard by the very same Judge from
November, 2011. After examination of witnesses and after
hearing the arguments on both the sides, it is not clear how
the appellant has such an apprehension at this stage. 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
11
Page 12
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.
11) It is also brought to our notice that the case was being
monitored by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi by way
of getting status/progress reports. We also noticed that the
High Court at Ranchi, by order dated 17.06.2013, directed
the trial Court to expeditiously proceed in the matter. In fact,
the Court directed the trial Judge to submit a progress report
by 06.08.2013.
12
Page 13
12) In the light of the entire factual scenario, particularly,
the objection relating to bias which came to be raised at the
fag end of the trial that is on the eve of passing orders, as
observed earlier, we are not inclined to entertain such
objection. The Presiding Judge, in our view, will take note of
the grievance expressed and eliminate the apprehension of
the appellant. It goes without saying that every litigant is
entitled to fair justice.
13) Independence of judiciary is the basic feature of the
Constitution. It demands that a Judge who presides over the
trial, the Public Prosecutor who presents the case on behalf
of the State and the lawyer vis-a-vis amicus curiae who
represents the accused must work together in harmony in
the public interest of justice uninfluenced by the personality
of the accused or those managing the affairs of the State.
They must ensure that their working does not lead to
creation of conflict between justice and jurisprudence. A
person whether he is a judicial officer or a Public Prosecutor
or a lawyer defending the accused should always uphold the
dignity of their high office with a full sense of responsibility
13
Page 14
and see that its value in no circumstance gets devalued. The
public interest demands that the trial should be conducted in
a fair manner and the administration of justice would be fair
and independent.
14) In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any
valid and acceptable reason for interference with the
impugned order of the High Court. However, keeping in view
the submissions made that arguments are still to be
advanced, we grant a further time of 5 days for the
prosecution and 15 days for all the accused including the
appellant herein. After completion of the arguments as
prescribed, we direct the Special Judge to pronounce the
decision as early as possible, uninfluenced by any of the
observations made by the High Court and this Court.
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.
14
Page 15
(P. SATHASIVAM)
………….…………………………J. (RANJANA PRAKASH
DESAI)
………….…………………………J. (RANJAN GOGOI)
NEW DELHI; AUGUST 13, 2013.
15