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