LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV versus STATE THROUGH C.B.I. (A.H.D.) RANCHI, JHARKHAND

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1032 · Decided: 26-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD Y ADA V 
v. 
STATE THROUGH C.B.I. (A.H.D.) RANCHI, JHARKHAND 
AUGUST 26, 2003 
[S.N. VARIAVA, P.VENKATARAMA REDDI AND ASHOK BHAN, Jl] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 223 and 407: 
Trial of cases of corruption/conspiracy by the Special Judges at two 
C places-'-Transfer petition for trial at one place/joint trial-Rejected by the 
trial Court and the High Court-On appeal, Held, In the absence .ef consent 
of other accused for joint trial/amalgamation in all the cases, it ii not 
appropriate to permit the appellants to obtain consent from the remaining 
accused bye-passing the trial Court-The cases are being disposed of 
D expeditiously-Transfer of the cases to one Court may prejudicially affect 
other accused-The High Court has rightly held that since the charges had 
not been framed in all the cases, it was not appropriate to decide on the joint 
trial/amalgamation of the cases-Transfer of the cases not allowed-Application 
for using_ the evidence of common witnesses recorded in one case to other 
case could be considered by the Special Judge/trial Court on merit-Penal 
E Code, /86~onspiracy-Prevention of Corruption Act. 
Appellants - two Ex-Chief Ministers of Bihar and others have been 
accused of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and of the 
offence of conspiracy under the Penal Code and the cases against them 
F were pending before the Special Judge at Patna. Later, pursuant to the 
judgment of the Supreme Court in CBI v. Braj Bhushan Prasad, [2001) 9 · 
SCC 432, some of the cases have been transferred to the Courts of Special 
Judges, Jharkhand. A petition was filed in the cases pending before the 
Special Judge at Patna for joint trial at Jharkhand, which was rejected. 
Appeals were also rejected by the High Court. Thereafter, the High Court 
G at Jharkhanrl rejected the writ petition ~nd transfer petition for 
amalgamation/transfer of the cases in one Court for trial. Hence the 
present appeals. 
In support of the petitions/appeals for transfer of all the cases at one 
place, it was contended for the appellants that though the High Court at 
H 
1002 
LALU PRASAD@LALUPRASAD YADAV v. STATE THROUGH C.B.I. (A.H.D.) RANCID, JHARKHAND 1033 
Patna dismissed the petition for joint trial but held that there was a single A 
conspiracy in all the cases; that the object of the alleged conspiracy was 
to withdraw money from treasuries presently located in the State of 
Jharkhand; that large number of common witnesses/documents would be 
examined; and that the evidence of common witnesses if examined 
separately in all the cases, there was strong probability of their evidence B 
being different. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court has rightly held that the question of joipt 
trial could be decided only when the other connected cases are also ready C 
and reach the stage of framing of the charges. Since all the cases have not 
reached the stage of framing of the charges, the application was 
premature. Moreov~r, the joint trial is likely to result in delay in trial of 
another connected case at Patna which has been progressing considerably. 
The High Court has rightly held that it is the trial Court which would 
have to consider the stand of other accused persons who have not prayed D 
for joint trial. Most of the other accused persons have not applied for joint 
trial. This Court does not know what their stand was. Consent had to be 
obtained before the application for amalgamation was made. It was for 
the Special Judge to consider whether it was expedient and in the interest 
of justice that all accused persons, in all the cases, be tried jointly. It is E 
neither expedient nor proper that the Appellants be permitted to bypass 
the trial Court to obtain consent from all the accused for joint trial at 
this stage. (1040-D, E, F, G) 
1.2. Earlier, this Court held in a connected case that the main 
offences were under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the offence F 
of conspiracy is an allied offence to the main offence under the Prevention 
of Corruption Act. The cases are before the Special Judges because the 
main offences are under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The main 
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in each case is in respect 
of the alleged transaction in that case. As conspiracy is only an allied G 
offence it cannot be said that the alleged overt acts are in the course of 
the same transaction. This Court is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.