The Supreme Court raised concerns that transferring the liquor scam trial from Uttar Pradesh to Chhattisgarh could unfairly affect co-accused based in UP. The Court warned that such a move may create conflicting claims and cause “great hardship” to other accused persons.
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday expressed concern that transferring the trial in the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam case could cause serious hardship to other accused persons involved in the matter.
A Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi was hearing a petition filed by Niranjan Das, a retired Chhattisgarh government officer who is an accused in the liquor scam case.
During the hearing, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Shoeb Alam appeared for Das and requested the Court to transfer the trial arising out of an FIR registered in Uttar Pradesh to Chhattisgarh. The petitioner argued that the allegations made in the FIRs registered in Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh are almost identical and are part of the same conspiracy.
However, the Chief Justice questioned this claim and pointed out that a coordinate Bench had earlier taken a different view. Observing this, the CJI said,
“You are saying the allegations in the two states are similar. But the coordinate Bench says they are state-specific.”
The Bench then highlighted the practical problems that could arise if the trial related to the Uttar Pradesh FIR was transferred to Chhattisgarh. It noted that some of the co-accused are residents of Uttar Pradesh and shifting the trial could unfairly affect them.
Emphasising this concern, the Court observed,
“In the UP FIR, there are co-accused from Uttar Pradesh also. If the trial is transferred in your case, they will also be affected.”
Raising a specific example, the Chief Justice asked what would happen to a co-accused who is a permanent resident of Noida if the trial is moved to Raipur.
In response, Rohatgi submitted that the said co-accused is already facing proceedings in Chhattisgarh and would therefore have to appear there in any case.
The Bench, however, was not fully convinced and pointed out the possibility of contradictory demands by different accused persons. It remarked,
“What if he says transfer it to Noida and don’t force me to go to Chhattisgarh? These are conflicting claims by the co-accused.”
The Court further indicated that instead of transferring the trial, limited relief could be considered to avoid inconvenience. Making this clear, the Bench said,
“You may be granted ancillary relief, like you may be permitted to appear only and exempted from physical appearance. Otherwise, see the predicament. We may end up passing an order that may cause great hardship to the co-accused.”
Rohatgi then argued that the approach suggested by the Court would have wider consequences for other accused persons as well and requested that they should also be heard before any final decision is taken.
Taking note of the submissions, the Supreme Court directed that all three connected cases raising similar issues should be tagged together. The Bench ordered that the matters be listed for a joint hearing on January 19.
According to investigating agencies, the alleged liquor scam in Chhattisgarh was carried out between 2019 and 2022, during the tenure of the Bhupesh Baghel-led Congress government. The agencies claim that the scam caused a “massive loss” to the state exchequer and benefited members of a liquor syndicate.
The main allegation is that the state’s excise policy was deliberately manipulated. The syndicate is accused of selling “off-the-book” or unaccounted-for liquor through government-run shops by using duplicate holograms and bottles, thereby generating illegal profits.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam
