LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAVversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

                     [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
                                                                  8
   [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
              AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.)

        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
parties that written arguments may be filed on or before
01.07.2013 and judgment is to-be delivered on or before
15.07 .2013.

     At this stage, Criminal Misc. Petition was filed before    D
the High Court by the appellant for the 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 c;annot be done
by the aforesaid court. The High Court dismissed the            E
petition which resulted in the present appeal by way of
special leave.

     The appellant made-two fold submissions:- 1) that
conduct of the trial J~Q,ge made it obvious that fair           F
opportunity was not being given to the appellant to
defend himself and there was every likelihood that he
would not get justice, hence, it was a fit case for transfer;
and (ii)that the Presiding .i,µdge was related to a political
rival of the appellant who was also a Minister in the           G
Government of Bihar; and in such circumstance,
because of the relationship and closeness, the appellant
may not get fair justice at t~ hands of the Presiding
Judge.
                                                                H
    166       SUPREME COURT REPORTS           (2013] 8 S.C.R.


A         Dismissing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1.1. On going through all the details including
  the Order Sheet of the Fodder Scam case, it is clear that
  the procedure adopted by the Special Judge cannot be
  faulted with, except one aspect which was also noticed
8
  by the High Court intimating the parties in the midst of
  the arguments and compelling them to file writtei:i
  arguments on or before 01.07.2013 and judgment to be
  pronounced on 15.07.2013. Except the said recourse,
  which is not in consonance with the scheme of the Code,
C particularly, in a criminal trial, considering the magnitude
  of the case pending since 1997, the conduct of the Judge
  cannot be faulted with. In view of the same, this Court is
  inclined to provide further time for the accused as well
  as prosecution to complete their arguments, if they so
D desire. [Para 8) [172-E-H]

         1.2. Merely because some of the distantly related
    members were in the midst of the present Chief Minister,
    it cannot be presumed that the Presiding Judge would
E   conclude against the appellant. Admittedly, the above
    criminal proceedings were heard by the very same Judge
    from November, 2011. After examination of witnesses and
    after hearing the arguments on both the sides, it is not
    clear how the appellant has such an apprehension at this
F   stage. If the appellant really had any apprehension in his
    mind, this could have been raised at the earliest point of
    time and not after the conclusion of evidence and
    arguments, particularly, on the eve of pronouncement of
    judgment. In administering justice, Judges should be
G   able to act impartially, objectively and without ·any bias.
    The only error which the Special Judge has committed
    is that after granting time for arguments, it abruptly
    issued a notice informing the parties that the written
    arguments are to be submitted on or before 01.07.2013
H   and the judgment would be delivered on or before
 LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV v. STATE 167
              OF JHARKHAND
15.07.2013. Inconvenience, if any, can be set at right by          A
granting further time for arguments. Accordingly, the
claim of the appellant for transfer of the entire case from
the file of the Special Judge to any other competent court
cannot be entertained. The prosecution was initiated as
early as in 1997 and after prolonged trial, the matter has         B
reached final stage, namely, pronouncement of the
decision. In a matter of this nature, it is not at all desirable
to shift the case to some other court at the last hour.
[Para 10] [174-C-H; 175-A]

     1.3. In the light of the entire factual scenario,             C
particularly, the objection relating to bias which came to
be raised at the fag end of the trial that is on the eve of
passing orders, this Court is not inclined to entertain
such objection. The Presiding Judge will take note of the
grievance expressed and eliminate the apprehension of              D
the appellant. It goes without saying that every litigant is
entitled to fair justice. [Para 12] [175-D]

     1.4. Independence of judiciary is the basic feature of
the Constitution. It demands that a Judge who presides             E
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            F
affairs of the State. They must ensure that their working
does not lead to creation of conflict between justice and
jurisprudence. A person whether he is a judicial officer or
a Public Prosecutor or a lawyer defending the accused
should always uphold the dignity of their high office with         G
a full sense of responsibility and see that its value in no
circumstance gets devalued. The public interest demands
that the trial should be conducted in a fair manner and the
administration of justice would be fair and independent.
[Para 13] [175-E-G]
                                                                   H
    168      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A      1.5. There is no valid and acceptable reason for
  interference with the impugned order of the High Court.
  However, keeping in view the submissions made that
  arguments are still to be advanced, a further time of 5
  days is granted for the prosecution and 15 days for all
B the accused including the appellant. After completion of
  the arguments as prescribed, the Special Judge shall
  pronounce the decision as early as possible,
  uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the
  High Court and this Court. [Paras 14) [176-A-B]
c        Manak Lal, Advocate vs. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi and
    Ors. AIR 1957 SC 425: 1957 SCR 575 - referred to.
                         Case Law Reference:
          1957 SCR 575            referred to          Para 9
D
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1166 of 2013.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2013 of the
E High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Crl. M.P. No. 1619 of
  2013.

        Mohan Parasaran, S.G., Ram Jethmalani, P.H. Parekh,
  Shanti Bhushan, E.R. Kumar, Karan Kalia, Praanv Diesh, P.R.
  Mala, Galav Sharma, Ekansh Mishra (Parekh & Co.), D.L.
F Chidananda, Anupam Prasad, Rohit Sharma, B.V. Balaram
  Das, Rohit K. Singh, Gopal Singh, Kartik Seth, Manish Kumar
  for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
          P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1. Leave granted.

        2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
    order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the High Court of
    Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1619 of
H
 LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD_ YADAV v. STATE 169
      OF JHARKHAND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
2013 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by          A
the appellant herein for transferring the.case being R.C. No.
20(A)/1996 from the Court of Special Judge-IV, CBI, (AHO),
Ranchi to any other Court of competent jurisdiction.

    3. Brief facts:                                                  B
      (a) This appeal relates to illegal withdrawal of a sum of
Rs.35,66,42,086/- from the Treasury of Chaibasa by the
officials of Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar
in connivance with the politicians and suppliers in the year 1994-
95 which culminated into the registration of a First Information     C
Report (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 the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in
short 'the IPC') and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)
and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the     D
PC Act') against a number of accused persons including the
appellant herein.

      (b) After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the
Court of the Special Judge IV, CBI (AHO), Ranchi in the year         E
1997 and the charges were framed in the year 2000 in respect
of various offences punishable under the IPC and the PC Act.
The prosecution started its arguments and concluded on
10.12.2012 and the arguments advanced on behalf of 43 out
of 45 accused persons got concluded on 25.02.2013. The
                                                                     F
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 on behalf of the appellant which
continued till 31.05.2013. Considering the fact that the matter
has been lingering on since 1997, the Court below passed an
order dated 10.06.2013 that on the next date, if the arguments       G
would not be advanced on behalf of the appellant, it shall be
closed. Thereupon, the arguments were advanced till
1R06.2013. On 20.06.2013, a notice was issued by the trial
Judge informing all the parties that written arguments may be
filed on or before 01.07.2013 and judgment is to be delivered        H
    170      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A on or before 15.07.2013. At this stage, Criminal Misc. Petition
  No. 1619 of 2013 was filed before the High Court by the
  appellant for the 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
B done by the aforesaid court.

       (c) The High Court, after considering the rival submissions
  and taking note of the fact that the case has reached the stage
  of delivering judgment, by order dated 01.07.2013, provided a
  further time of 10 days for conclusion of the arguments and
C dismissed the petition which resulted in the present appeal by
  way of special leave.

       (d) On the day when the matter was posted for hearing,
  one Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Lallan Singh, Member of the Lok
D Sabha from Munger Parliamentary Constituency in the State of
  Bihar, filed Criminal Misc. Petition No. 14939 of 2013 seeking
  intervention in the abovesaid appeal. It was also stated that he
  was one of the writ petitioners before the High Court of Patna
  in a writ petition filed in public interest which led to the
E unearthing of the fodder scam in the State of Bihar during the
  period 1977 to 1996. According to him, he has been fighting
  all along for a free and fair investigation of the case and
  expeditious conclusion of the trial so that the guilty are brought
  to book and public confidence in the judicial system is not
F shaken. It is also highlighted that due to various orders of the
  monitoring Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand, the matter
  has reached its concluding stage, hence, there is no bona fide
  and the claim of the appellant is devoid of any merit and
  deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice.

G        (e) Serious objection was raised by the appellant and the
    respondent-State through its Investigation Officer-CBI about the
    role of the intervenor in a criminal trial.

       4. Heard Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for
H the appellant, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General
LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV v. STATE 171
     OF JHARKHAND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
for the respondent-CBI and Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior           A
counsel for the intervenor.

Submissions:

    5. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the
appellant, at the foremost, submitted as under:-                        B

    (i) The conduct of the trial Judge gives a reasonable
apprehension of not getting fair justice. In other words,
according to him, from the conduct of the trial Judge, it is
obvious that fair opportunity was not being given to the                c
appellant to defend himself and there is every likelihood that
he would not get justice, hence, it is a fit case for transfer; and

      (ii) The younger sister of the Presiding Judge of the CBI,
viz., Mrs. Minu Devi, is married to Mr. Jainendra Shahi, the
cousin of Mr. P.K. Shahi, who, besides having appeared for              D
the CBI, is a political rival of the appellant in the Public Interest
Litigations and presently a Minister in the Government of Bihar.
 In such circumstance, according to Mr. Jethmalani, because of
the relationship and closeness, the appellant may not get fair
justice at the hands of the Presiding Judge.                            E

     6. On the other hand, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned
Solicitor General appearing for the CBI, after adverting to the
factual scenario, left the issue to the decision of this Court,
however, he strongly pointed out about the maintainability of the       F
application for intervention.

     7. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the
intervenor, by placing the factual details starting from the taking
of cognizance, filing of the charge sheet, various dates on which       G
the evidence was led in by both the sides and the arguments
advanced submitted that it is not a fit case for transfer at this
juncture, particularly, when the Special Judge is going to
pronounce the judgment shortly. He also submitted that the
applicant has filed several petitions before the High Court as
                                                                        H
    172      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A well as in this Court highlighting various issues relating to
  'fodder scam'.

    Discussion:

        8. With regard to the first submission relating to the
B apprehension in the mind of the appellant that he may not get
  fair and impartial trial, it is relevant to point out that cognizance
  of various offences punishable under the IPC .and the PC Act
  was taken against the accused persons in the year 1997 and
  charges were framed against them in the year 2000. It is further
C seen that the prosecution took 13 years in examining the
  witnesses. The prosecution argued its case against the present
  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
D till 31.05.2013. It is the grievance of the appellant that on
  10.06.2013, an order was passed by the Special 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.
E On 20.06.2013, a notice was issued by the trial Judge
  informing all the parties that written arguments may be filed on
  or before 01.07.2013 and judgment is to be delivered on or
  before 15.07.2013. On going through all the details including
  the Order Sheet of the Fodder Scam case, we are of the view
F that the procedure adopted by the Special Judge cannot be
  faulted with except one aspect which was also noticed by the
  High Court intimating the parties in the midst of the arguments
  and compelling them to file written arguments on or before
  01.07.2013 and judgment to be pronounced on 15.07.2013.
  Except the said recourse, which is not in consonance with the
G scheme of the Code, particularly, in a criminal trial, considering
  the magnitude of the case pending since 1997, the conduct of
  the Judge cannot be faulted with. In view of the same, this Court
  is inclined to provide further time for the accused as well as
  prosecution to complete their arguments, if they so desire.
H
    LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV v. STATE 173
         OF JHARKHAND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
         9. Coming to the second apprehension about the                     A
    closeness of the trial Judge with the person in power, it is
    pointed out that Mr. P.K. Shahi, Ex-Advocate General of the
    State of Bihar, presently a Minister in the Government of Bihar
    is a close relative of the trial Judge. While elaborating further,
    Mr. Ram Jethmalani submitted that the sister of the Presiding           B
    Judge, Mrs. Minu Devi, is married to Mr. Jainendra Shahi,
    grand son of Late Fulena Shahi, whose one of the brothers was
    Late Hari Shankar Shahi and Mr. P.K. Shahi happens to be
    the grand son of Late Hari Shankar Shahi and as such
    Jainendra Shahi, husband of the sister of trial Judge happens           c
    to be the cousin of Mr. P.K. Shahi, who on account of his defeat
    in a Parliamentary election at the hands of the candidate
    belonging to the appellant's party is quite anxious to settle the
    score by making his influence to get the appellant convicted so
    that there would be a political death of the appellant. With            D
    regard to the above aspect, Mr. Jethmalani heavily relied on a
    decision of this Court in Manak Lal, Advocate, vs. Dr. Prem
    Chand Singhvi & Ors., AIR 1957 SC 425 and submitted that
    with regard to bias, proof of actual prejudice is not necessary.
    This Court, in paragraph 4 of the judgment, enunciated the
    following principles:
                                                                            E

         "4 .......... It is well settled that every member of a Tribunal
         that is called upon to try issues in judicial or quasi-judicial
         proceedings must be able to act judicially; and it is of the
         essence of judicial decisions and judicial administration          F
         that Judges should be able to act impartially, objectively
         and without any bias. In such cases the test is not whether
         in fact a bias has affected the judgment; the test always is
         and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend
         that a bias attributable to a member of the Tribunal might         G
         have operated against him in the final decision of the
         Tribunal. It is in this sense that it is often said that justice
         must not only be done but must also appear to be
         done ........ "
                                                                            H




r
    174       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A         10. In order to substantiate the contention relating to bias,
    namely, the Presiding Judge would be influenced by his
    brother-in-law or even by his sister or Mr. P.K. Shahi to go
    against the interest of the appellant, Mr. Ram Jethmalani,
    learned senior counsel, placed some photographs taken on
B   13.01.2013 during the visit of Hon'ble the Chief Minister of
    Bihar Shri Nitish Kumar to the ancestral house of Shri P.K.
    Shahi along with the entire Shahi family at House No. 147
    Village Angota Block, Nautan P.S., District Sivan. By showing
    these photographs, it is argued that there is a reasonable
c   apprehension of real likelihood of bias on the part of the
    Presiding Judge. Apart from the relationship, as mentioned by
    the appellant, we were also shown the genealogical table. In
    our opinion, merely because some of the distantly related
    members were in the midst of the present Chief Minister, it
    cannot be presumed that the Presiding Judge would conclude
0
    against the appellant. Admittedly, the above criminal
    proceedings were heard by the very same Judge from
    November, 2011. After examination of witnesses and after
    hearing the arguments on both the sides, it is not clear how the
    appellant has such an apprehension at this stage. If the
E   appellant really had any apprehension in his mind, this could
    have been raised at the earliest point of time and not after the
    conclusion of evidence and arguments, particularly, on the eve
    of pronouncement of judgment. In administering justice, Judges
    should be able to act impartially, objectively and without any
F   bias. The only thing which, according to us, is that the Special
    Judge has committed an error that after granting time for
    arguments, abruptly issued a notice informing the parties that
    the written arguments are to be submitted on or before
    01.07 .2013 and the judgment would be delivered on or before
G   15.07.2013. As observed earlier, inconvenience, if any, can be
    set at right by granting further time for arguments. Accordingly,
    the claim of the appellant for transfer of the entire case from
    the file of the Special Judge to any other competent court cannot
    be entertained. We have already highlighted that the
H   prosecution was initiated as early as in 1997 and after
LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV v. STATE 175
     OF JHARKHAND [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
prolonged trial, the matter has reached final stage, namely,           A
pronouncement of the decision. In our view, in a matter of this
nature, it is not at all desirable to shift the case to some other
court at the last hour.

     11. It is also brought to our notice that the case was being      8
monitored by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi by way of
getting status/progress reports. We also noticed that the High
Court at Ranchi, by order dated 17.06.2013, directed the trial
Court to expeditiously proceed in the matter. In fact, the Court
directed the trial Judge to submit a progress report by                C
06.08.2013.

     12. In the light of the entire factual scenario, particularly,
the objection relating to bias which came to be raised at the
fag end of the trial that is on the eve of passing orders, as
observed earlier, we are not inclined to entertain such objection.     D
The Presiding Judge, in our view, will take note of the grievance
expressed and eliminate the apprehension of the appellant. It
goes without saying that every litigant is entitled to fair justice.

       13. Independence of judiciary is the basic feature of the       E
Constitution. It demands that a 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
                                                                       F
those managing the affairs of the State. They must ensure that
their working does not lead to creation of conflict between
justice and jurisprudence. A person whether he is a judicial
officer or a Public Prosecutor or a lawyer defending the
accused should always uphold the dignity of their high office
with a full sense of responsibility and see that its value in no       G
circumstance gets devalued. The public interest demands that
the trial should be conducted in a fair manner and the
administration of justice would be fair and independent.

     14. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any      H
    176      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A valid and acceptable reason for interference with the impugned
  order of the High Court. However, keeping in view the
  submissions made that arguments are still to be advanced, we
  grant a further time of 5 days for the prosecution and 15 days
  for all the accused including the appellant herein. After
B completion of the arguments as prescribed, we direct the
  Special Judge to pronounce the decision as early as possible,
  uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the High
  Court and this Court.

C       15. The appeal is dismissed with the above direction. In
    view of the above conclusion, without expressing any opinion
    on the maintainability, the application for intervention is
    dismissed.

    B.B.B.                                   Appeal dismissed.