LexLALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV versus STATE OF JHARKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 163 LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV A v. STATE OF JHARKHAND (Criminal Appeal No.1166 of 2013) AUGUST 13, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.) 8 Criminal trial - Fodder scam - Prosecution initiated in 1997 - After prolonged trial, the matter reached final stage, C namely, pronouncement of the decision - Petition filed by appellant at this stage for transfer of the case from the Court of Special Judge IV, CBI (AHO) to any other court of competent jurisdiction on the apprehension that a fair and impartial trial cannot be done by the aforesaid court - D Dismissed by High Court - Justification - Held: Claim of appellant for transfer of the entire case from the file of the Special Judge to any other competent court cannot be entertained - Merely because some of the distantly related members were in the midst of the present Chief Minister, it E · cannot be presumed that the Presiding Judge would conclude against the appellant - If appellant really had any apprehension in his mind, this could have been raised at the earliest point of time and not after conclusion of evidence and arguments, particularly, on the eve of pronouncement of F judgment - Objection relating to bias on the eve of passing orders, cannot be entertained - In a matter of this nature, it is not at all desirable to shift the case to some other court at the last hour - Also, procedure adopted by the Special Judge cannot be faulted with, except one aspect which was also G noticed by the High Court i.e. intimating the parties in the midst of the arguments and compelling them to file written arguments on or before a particular date - Except the said recourse, which is not in consonance with the scheme of the 163 H 164 SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A Code, particularly, in a criminal trial, considering the magnitude of the case pending since 1997, the conduct of the- Judge cannot be faulted with - Inconvenience, if any, can be set at right by granting further time for arguments - Further time of 5 days granted for the prosecution and 15 days for all B the accused including the appellant - Transfer petition. Judiciary - Independence of - Requirement of upholding- the dignity of high office with full sense of responsibility - He/a: Independence of judiciary is basic feature of the Constitution C - 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 - Public interest demands D that the trial should be conducted in a fair manner and the administration of justice would be fair and independent. Administration of Justice - Held: In administering justice, Judges should be able to act impartially, objectively and E without any bias. A sum of Rs.35.66 crores was alleged to have been illegally withdrawn from the Treasury of Chaibasa by the officials of Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar in connivance with the politicians and suppliers F in the year 1994-95 which culminated into the registration of a 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 1208 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption G Act, 1988 against a number of accused persons including the appellant. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the Court of the Special Judge IV, CBI (AHO), Ranchi in H the year 1997 and the charges were framed in the year LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV v. STATE 165 OF JHARKHAND 2000 in respect of various offences punishable under the A IPC and the PC Act. 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 to be advanced on behalf of the appellant on day-to-day basis which continued till 31.05.2013. On B 10.06.2013, an order was passed by the Special CBI Judge stating that on the next date, if 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, c a notice was issued by the trial Judge informing all the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.