New Delhi:
Former rail minister Lalu Prasad on Thursday sought in the Delhi High Court the quashing of the FIR filed by the CBI in the land-for-jobs “scam”.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared in the court on behalf of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) supremo and argued that the enquiry and the FIR as well as the investigation and the subsequent chargesheets in the matter could not be legally sustained as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had failed to obtain prior sanction under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The sanction under section 17A is a mandatory requirement of law to launch any enquiry or investigation against a public servant, he said.
Submitting that the trial court is slated to hear arguments on charge on June 2, Sibal urged the court to pass directions to defer the same.
He said even after an initial closure report, the FIR was registered by the CBI in 2022 for offences allegedly committed from 2004 to 2009 and the trial court took cognisance and “merged” three chargesheets on February 25.
“What will I do if the charge is framed? Please wait for a month. We will argue the matter. For 14 years, you have waited (to register the FIR). This is only mala fide,” Sibal submitted.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja heard Sibal as well as senior advocate D P Singh, who appeared in the court for the CBI, and said he would pass an order.
Singh opposed the petition and said the necessary sanction under section 19 of the anti-graft law has been obtained.
Section 19 pertains to the requirement of a prior sanction from the competent authority for a court to take cognisance of an offence.
Sibal, however, said the sanction under section 17A “preceded” any sanction under section 19.
Singh said the issue of any mandatory compliance with section 17A is pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court on account of differing views and in any event, a stay on the proceedings could not be ordered for any irregularity.
“It is a case where public servants were told by the cronies for the minister to do these selections and land was given in lieu. Therefore, it is called the land-for-jobs case. The minister was misusing his position,” Singh said.
During the hearing, the court suggested that the legal question of requisite prior sanction could also be raised by the petitioner before the trial court.
Sibal said the trial court has already taken cognisance in the matter and is unlikely to “change its mind”.
The case is related to Group-D appointments made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railway based in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Prasad’s tenure as the rail minister between 2004 and 2009 allegedly in return for land parcels gifted or transferred by the recruits in the name of the RJD supremo’s family members or associates, officials said.
The case was registered on May 18, 2022 against Prasad and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private persons.
In his petition in the high court, Prasad has sought the quashing of the FIR as well as the three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and the consequential orders of cognisance.
The plea has said the FIR was lodged in 2022, that is, almost after a delay of 14 years, despite the CBI’s initial enquiries and investigations being closed after the filing of the closure report before the competent court.
“Initiation of the fresh investigation in concealment of the previous investigations and its closure reports is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner is being made to suffer through an illegal, motivated investigation, in clear violation of his fundamental right to a fair investigation. Both the initiation of the present enquiries and investigations are non est as both have been initiated without a mandatory approval under section l7A of the PC Act,” the petition says.
“Without such approval, any enquiry/inquiry/investigation undertaken would be void ab initio. Section 17A of the PC Act provides a filter from vexatious litigation. The present scenario of regime revenge and political vendetta is exactly what section 17A seeks to restrict by protecting innocent persons. The initiation of investigation without such approval vitiates the entire proceedings since inception and the same is a jurisdictional error,” it says.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
