New Delhi, March 19 A Delhi court has rejected the pleas of former Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and his wife Rabri Devi, seeking over 1,600 documents to prepare their defense in the land-for-jobs case trial, stating that they were intended to "obstruct the trial from the outset."
Special Judge Vishal Gogne emphasized that providing these documents would not only "delay the proceedings" but also "disrupt the judicial process."
He also dismissed the applications of two other accused – Lalu Prasad's personal secretary, R.K. Mahajan, seeking one document, and a former railway general manager, Maheep Kapoor, seeking 23 documents.
These documents are those seized by investigating agencies but not presented in the prosecution complaint.
The land-for-jobs case involves Group D appointments made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railways in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Lalu Prasad's tenure as Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009, in exchange for land parcels gifted or transferred by recruits to the family or associates of the RJD supremo, according to the CBI.
The case was registered on May 18, 2022, against Lalu Prasad and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials, and private individuals.
In a 35-page order passed on Wednesday, Judge Gogne stated that the court's authority over the trial could not be "misused by the accused under the guise of cross-examination," and that there was a "clear intention" by the applicants to delay the proceedings.
The court stated that it needed to conduct the recording of evidence in accordance with legal provisions to ensure a fair trial and expedite the proceedings.
The court said that the accused were requesting that all or some of these documents be provided before they could even begin preparing their defense, meaning that the provision of these documents was being presented as a condition for initiating cross-examination.
The court said, "While preparing for cross-examination certainly involves presenting a defense (through questions or suggestions), this exercise cannot be put on hold due to the accused's self-serving plea that they will be unable to prepare for cross-examination until they have access to these documents."
Emphasizing that these pleas were "untenable," the court said that the accused "cannot be allowed to create a conditionality on the continuation of the judicial proceedings."
The court said that various legal precedents did not mandate providing these documents as a matter of entitlement or right to the accused. They could not claim prejudice to their defense in the absence of these at the start of the trial, the court added.
The court noted that the accused had previously been given a sufficient opportunity to inspect the documents, which were part of the seized evidence.
The court said that it does not find the accused "misinterpreting the evidence," as they are called upon to prepare for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
According to the law, the trial had to be conducted first on the evidence presented by the prosecution, which included the documents relied upon, it said.
The court said, "If the arguments of the accused are accepted, the framework of the trial, as recognized in the Code of Criminal Procedure (now the BNSS), would change from a system based on relied upon documents to one based on unrelied upon documents."
"The intent or effect of providing these documents en bloc to the accused would not only delay the proceedings but also completely disrupt the trial," the court added.
The court highlighted that providing these documents was "a discretionary power" that it could exercise at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, and that this discretion would be governed by the necessity and desirability.
The court said that there are 421 relied upon documents and 1,675 unrelied upon documents. The court finds the request to be provided with all unrelied upon documents to be designed to obstruct the trial from the outset, and that too when the accused have not even begun to prepare a defense through questions, suggestions, or a projected defense, said Judge Gogne.
He said that if the court were to rule on the relevance, necessity, or desirability of producing hundreds, if not thousands, of unrelied upon documents even before the witnesses uttered a single statement and even before a volley had been fired upon them during cross-examination, it would be "forced to express an opinion on the relevance of these documents solely to suit the defense."
The judge also said he could sense a "latent" or "underlying" intent by the applicants to delay the proceedings, which would involve providing 1,675 unrelied upon documents, followed by a plethora of applications seeking missing or illegible documents.
"A trial court must guard against latent motives of the applicants apart from unreasonable outcomes," he said.
Regarding Mahajan's plea, the judge said that it was "entirely self-serving" for him to contend that cross-examination would be hampered by the non-availability of a CBI file, which was not even a relied upon document.
He said, "The court would reiterate that the statutory scheme of the trial cannot be inverted so that proceedings turn into a trial of unrelied upon documents to the detriment of relied upon documents."
In its order, the court also highlighted the charges against Lalu Prasad Yadav that he allegedly abused his official position as the then Union railway minister to ensure appointments of certain persons to Group D posts in the Indian Railways.
In an alleged quid pro quo, the candidates so appointed or their family members sold or gifted their respective land holdings to the family members of Lalu Prasad, and Rabri Devi was one such member, the court said.
His then personal secretary, Mahajan, allegedly abused his official position, in conspiracy with him and others, to ensure many such appointments by communicating lists of nominees canvassed by Lalu Prasad with various general managers, including Kapoor, who were the appointing authority, it said.
On January 9, the court had ordered framing charges against RJD supremo Lalu Prasad, his family members and others.
It has framed charges in the case against 41 accused persons and discharged 52 others. Out of the 103 accused named in the CBI's chargesheet, five have died.
