Fodder scam of Bihar, 1996
(Created page with "[[File: Fodder scam of Bihar, a timeline, January 1996-May 2017.jpg|Fodder scam of Bihar, a timeline, January 1996-May 2017; [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?e...") |
(→A backgrounder) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
[[Category:Crime |F ]] | [[Category:Crime |F ]] | ||
[[Category:Places |B ]] | [[Category:Places |B ]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
=Rulings by the Supreme Court= | =Rulings by the Supreme Court= | ||
Revision as of 14:10, 5 January 2018
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Rulings by the Supreme Court
Accusing Lalu Prasad Yadav/ 2017
Trials Must For Each Of Many Cases’
The Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to RJD chief Lalu Prasad by reviving the quashed trial in the Deoghar treasury withdrawal case against him and ruling that he will have to face separate trials in the 30-year-old fodder scam cases.
In what could provide political ammunition to the opponents of Prasad, who was convicted in one of the fodder scam cases and has, as a consequence, been debarred from contesting polls, a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy said his conviction and five-year sentence for conspiracy in the Rs 37.7 crore fraudulent withdrawal from the Chaibasa treasury would not fetter the CBI from prosecuting him separately in other fodder scam cases.
Every withdrawal constituted a distinct offence requiring separate trial, the apex court bench said.
The setback coincides with a stream of information about hitherto undeclared assets of the Prasad clan, and can only weaken his hand in his dealings with friend-turned-rival-turned-ally, Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar. The SC was remarkably harsh on Jharkhand high court's Justice R R Prasad, who on November 14, 2014 had quashed the conspiracy charge against Prasad, ex-CM Jagannath Mishra and ex-bureaucrat Sajal Chakraborty . The SC ruling means Mishra and Chakraborty , too, will face multiple trials in fodder scam cases.
Rectifying the HC's “mis take“, the bench asked the trial court to complete trial against Prasad in nine months. Prasad's main argument was that the fodder scam was part of one conspiracy and as he had already been convicted for conspiracy in the Chaibasa case, he could not be punished again for conspiracy in the Deoghar case as doing so would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution, which bars puni shing a person twice for the same offence.
Rejecting this, the bench held that fraudulent withdrawals from different treasuries as part of the mega fodder scam marked distinct offences requiring separate trials. Accepting solicitor general Ranjit Kumar's arguments, the bench said, “Though there was one general charge of conspiracy, which was allied in nature, the charge was qualified with the substantive charge of defalcation of a particular sum from a particular treasury in a particular time period. “The charge has to be taken in substance for the purpose of defalcation from a particular treasury in a particular financial year exceeding the allocation made for the purpose of animal husbandry on the basis of fake vouchers, fake supply orders etc. The sanctions made in the budget were separate for each and every year.
“Each defalcation would constitute an independent offence. Thus, by no stretch it can be held to be in violation of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Separate trials in such cases are the very intendment of law. There is no room to raise such a grievance. Though evidence of general conspiracy has been adduced in cases which have been concluded, it may be common to all the cases but at the same time offences are different at different places, by different accused persons.“
"Illegal" quashing of conspiracy charge by Justice Rakesh Ranjan
Stricturing Justice Rakesh Ranjan Prasad for “illegally“ quashing the conspiracy charge against RJD chief Lalu Prasad in the Deoghar treasury withdrawal case, the Supreme Court emphasised that the judge had taken a contrary position earlier in another fodder scam-linked case and said the reasons for the stark contradiction were “not understandable“.
As it indicted Justice Prasad, then in the Jharkhand HC, the SC also censured the CBI for “intolerable lethargy“ in not appealing the verdict favouring the RJD strongman.
Justice Prasad was transferred from Jharkhand HC to Manipur HC in February 2016 and became its chief justice in September 2016. He had given relief to Prasad on November 14, 2014 on the ground that the RJD chief had already been convicted for conspiracy in the Chaibasa treasury case in September 2013.
Justice Prasad was of the opinion that the entire fodder scam was one conspiracy and no person should be punished twice for the same offence. Justice Prasad is scheduled to retire on June 30, if he is not appointed as a judge of the SC by then.
An SC bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy tore into Justice Prasad's logic and showed him his previous judgment in a petition filed by R K Rana, a fodder scam co-accused. In Rana's case, Justice Prasad had held that separate trial for separate offences in fodder scam was permissible as the conspirators were different for different fraudulent withdrawals.
“Judicial discipline requires that such a blatant contradiction in such an important matter should have been avoided. The order passed in the case of R K Rana was on sound basis and though the court had noted that there was some overlapping of facts but the offences were different, it, however, has taken a different view in the impugned order for the reasons which are not understandable,“ the SC bench said.
“The court (Justice Prasad) ought to have been careful while dealing with such matters and consistency is the hallmark of the court due to which people have faith in the system and it is not open to the court to take a different view in the same matter with reference to different accused persons in the same facts and same case,“ Justices Mishra and Roy said.
“Such inconsistent decision-making ought to have been avoided at all costs so as to ensure credibility of the system. The impugned orders are palpably illegal, faulty and contrary to the basic principles of law and judge has ignored large number of binding decisions of this court while giving impermissible benefit to the accused persons and delayed the case for several years. Interference had been made at the advanced stage of the case which was wholly unwarranted and uncalled for,“ they said.
The CBI too got the wrong end of the stick for developing cold feet while challenging judgments in favour of Lalu Prasad.
Justices Mishra and Roy said, “The CBI ought to be guided by its manual. It is expected of it to be more vigilant. It has failed to live up to its reputation. In the instant case, lethargy on its part is intolerable..“
