Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 572 (PAT)

Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav v. Union Of India

2004-05-21

C.M.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment 1. Both sides have been heard on admission. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 17th March 2004 of the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna passed in Special Case No. 5 of 1998, whereby the claim of the opposite party that some of the documents, as called for by the petitioner in defence during the trial, have been held to be privileged documents. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter, in short, referred to as the CBI) submitted that the petitioner has taken the ground of malicious prosecution against the petitioner during the investigation on the ground that during investigation, the CBI officials had approached Brigadier Nautial for army assistance for the purpose of executing warrant of arrest against the petitioner and that an enquiry was instituted by the Department of Personnel and Training the then Department for administrative control of the CBI in the conduct of CBI Official who sought the assistance of the Army for executing warrant of arrest against the petitioner and that on the petitioners prayer, Brigadier Nautial and A.P. Dorai who had submitted an enquiry report with respect to the enquiry into the conduct of CBI Officials, were allowed to be examined respectively as DW 94 and DW 93 and the enquiry report, as submitted by A. P. Dorai was marked as Ext-A. It was further submitted that the enquiry report referred to some confidential internal correspondence about some officials and others which was sought by the petitioner to be brought on the record, but the opposite party claimed it as a privileged document due to it being a document in the category of "Political Category" involving internal and external security and maintaining harmonious relations in between the Central and the State and the trial Court held the documents as "Privileged Documents" and disallowed petitioners prayer for bringing it on record. Hence, against that order the instant petition before this Court has been filed. 4. The Standing Counsel for the CBI submitted that the petitioner is being tried for the offence of acquiring and amassing huge property which is disproportionate to his known source of income. Hence, against that order the instant petition before this Court has been filed. 4. The Standing Counsel for the CBI submitted that the petitioner is being tried for the offence of acquiring and amassing huge property which is disproportionate to his known source of income. It was further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has prayed that those privileged documents sought to be called for by the petitioner, have no direct bearing on the facts required for proving the offence for which the petitioner is being tried and that the petitioner has made prayer for calling for those documents only with a view to delay the trial. It was also submitted that the prayer for calling for the documents has been made on the ground that the investigation and prosecution was malicious, ft was also submitted that so far this point is concerned, Brigadier Nautial and A.P. Durai have already been allowed to be examined as defence witnesses and the enquiry report submitted by A. P.Durai has also been brought on record, but while making an effort to call for some other documents which are privileged documents and which have no direct bearing with the case, the petitioner is trying to complicate and protract the matter so that the trial can be delayed for some reasons or the other. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI submits that in Para 7 of the main petition in this case the petitioner mentions that he had earlier filed Cr. Misc. No. 14894 of 2000 challenging the trial Courts order dated 9th June 2000 on several grounds, including lack of jurisdiction and malicious prosecution and in para 8 of the petition, it is, mentioned that vide order dated 2nd August 2000, the High Court has admitted the application for hearing by a larger Bench and that the petitioners prayer for stay of the proceedings in the case was rejected by the High Court. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the earlier Cr. Misc. No. 14894 of 2000 as filed by the petitioner, involves the same questions of malicious prosecution as well as some other questions, like lack of jurisdiction etc. and the same is pending before a larger Bench of this Court. Hence, it was further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the instant Cr.Misc. Misc. No. 14894 of 2000 as filed by the petitioner, involves the same questions of malicious prosecution as well as some other questions, like lack of jurisdiction etc. and the same is pending before a larger Bench of this Court. Hence, it was further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the instant Cr.Misc. Application involving the same questions, may be heard by the same Bench or it may be ordered to be heard after the decision of the matter by the larger Bench in the aforesaid Cr. Misc. Application, i.e. Cr. Misc No. 14894,of 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Cr. Misc. Application should be taken-up for final hearing at present. But considering the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI, as above, I feel it proper that in order to avoid any anomalous or contradictory orders on similar point, this Cr. Misc. Application is heard after the decision of petitioners earlier Cr. Misc No. 14894 of 2000 which is pending before a larger Bench of this Court. 6. This petition is admitted and it is ordered to be listed for hearing after disposal of Cr. Misc No. 14894 of 2000. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if this Cr. Misc. Application is not being heard finally at this stage, then an order staying the proceeding of the case before the trial Court, till disposal of this Cr. Misc. application, be passed. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI submits that under Section 19(2) of the PC Act, stay of the proceedings before the trial Court is also barred. It was pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that in his earlier Cr. Misc. Application (Cr. Misc. No. 14894 of 2000), the petitioner had also prayed for stay of the proceedings of the case before the trial Court, but that prayer was rejected vide order dated 7th March, 2001 passed therein and thereafter the petitioner had approached the Honble Supreme Court for stay of the proceedings but the Honble Supreme Court, vide order dated 18th May 2001, passed in SLP (Crl) No. 1399 of 2001, rejected the petitioners prayer for stay. The rejection of petitioners prayer for stay of the proceedings by the Honble Supreme Court finds mention in page 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the OP (CBI) on 5th May, 2004. The rejection of petitioners prayer for stay of the proceedings by the Honble Supreme Court finds mention in page 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the OP (CBI) on 5th May, 2004. Learned Standing Counsel for the CBI submits that in the case before the trial Court, examination of all the prosecution as well as defence witnesses has finished and the case is at the stage of argument. Under the circumstances, I find no ground to stay the proceedings of the case before the trial Court, therefore, petitioners prayer for stay is hereby rejected.