A Delhi Court rejected requests by Lalu Prasad Yadav and Rabri Devi seeking 1,600 unrelied documents in the land-for-jobs case, with Judge Vishal Gogne warning it would derail the trial process at its outset stage.
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has turned down requests from former railway minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and his wife Rabri Devi for access to more than 1,600 unrelied documents that they said were necessary to prepare their defence in the land-for-jobs trial, finding the applications were intended to “condemn the trial to a maze at the very outset.”
Special Judge Vishal Gogne said handing over those documents en bloc would not only “place the cart before the horse” but would also throw the judicial process into “complete disarray”. He similarly rejected applications from two other accused: R K Mahajan, Lalu’s personal secretary, who sought one unrelied document, and Maheep Kapoor, a former appointing authority and ex-general manager of railways, who sought 23 unrelied documents. Unrelied documents are materials seized by investigators but not relied on in the prosecution’s complaint.
ALSO READ: Land-for-Job Scam: Court Defers Order on Framing Charges Against Lalu Yadav
The case concerns Group D appointments in the West Central Zone of Indian Railways at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Lalu’s tenure as railway minister from 2004 to 2009. The CBI alleges those appointments were made in exchange for land parcels transferred or gifted in the names of the RJD chief’s family members or associates. The case was registered on May 18, 2022, naming Lalu and others including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private individuals as accused.
In a scathing 35-page order on Wednesday, Judge Gogne observed that the court’s statutory control over the trial could not be “appropriated by the accused under the veneer of cross-examination” and found a “latent intent” among the applicants to protract the proceedings. The judge stressed that recording evidence must follow statutory provisions to preserve the right to a fair trial and to ensure expeditious disposal.
The court noted the accused were effectively conditioning their preparation for defence on receiving all or some unrelied documents before they could even begin preparing to cross-examine witnesses, which would be tantamount to treating the supply of these materials as a prerequisite to starting cross-examination.
The judge said,
“While the preparation of cross-examination does certainly entail projection of a defence (by way of questions or suggestions), such exercise cannot be held in abeyance upon the self-serving prayer of the accused that they shall be hampered in preparing for cross-examination till they have the unrelied documents in their possession,”
Labeling the pleas “untenable,” the court held that the accused “cannot be permitted to create a conditionality upon the continuation of judicial proceedings.” It observed that legal precedents do not require the court to provide unrelied documents as an entitlement and that the accused cannot claim prejudice for lacking them at the start of trial.
The order also noted that the accused previously had opportunities to inspect the materials classified as unrelied evidence, and ruled that they were not “flailing in the dark” as they prepared for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
Under the law, the trial proceeds first on evidence relied upon by the prosecution, which here comprises 421 documents; in contrast, the unrelied set contains 1,675 documents. The court warned that acceding to the accused’s demand would change the trial’s structure from a relied-upon documentary template to one dominated by unrelied materials.
It said,
“If the contentions of the accused are accepted, the framework of trial, as recognised in the Code of Criminal Procedure (now the BNSS), would transform from a relied upon (documents) template to an unrelied upon (documents) scenario.”
Also Read: Tej Pratap, Hema Yadav, and Others Granted Bail in Land-for-Job Scam Case
The judge added that supplying all unrelied documents at once would likely be followed by further applications for missing or illegible papers, further saddling the court.
Regarding Mahajan’s request, the judge described it as “entirely self-serving,” noting that the CBI file he sought was not relied upon by the prosecution. He reiterated that the statutory scheme of trial could not be inverted to make proceedings into a trial of unrelied documents at the expense of relied ones.
The order also summarised the allegations against Lalu Prasad Yadav: that he abused his position as Union railway minister to secure Group D appointments for certain candidates, and that, in return, those appointees or their family members transferred or sold land to Lalu’s family members with Rabri Devi named as one such recipient. The CBI alleges Mahajan conspired with Lalu and others by forwarding nominee lists to various general managers, including Kapoor, who were the appointing authorities.
On January 9, the court had ordered framing of charges against Lalu, his family and others. Charges have now been framed against 41 accused and 52 others discharged. Of the 103 accused listed in the CBI charge sheet, five have died.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE