RJD Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav Moves Delhi High Court Seeking Quashing Of CBI FIR In Land For Jobs Scam Case

RJD Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav has moved the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the alleged land for jobs scam case.

Yadav has also sought quashing of the three chargesheets filed by CBI in the case as well as the trial court orders taking cognizance of the said chargesheets.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja today heard briefly Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Yadav and the counsel for the central probe agency. 

An order will be passed later in the matter.

Sibal submitted that there was no prior approval obtained by CBI to prosecute which is mandatory under Section 17A (prior sanction before initiating investigation against public servant) of the PC Act qua the RJD Chief.

The judge told Sibal that the plea [lack of sanction to prosecute] can be taken up before the special judge at the time of framing of charges.

To this, Sibal responded that the trial court has already taken cognizance of the chargesheets filed by CBI and will not change his mind on the issue.

“If the charges are framed, where will I go?” Sibal said.

To this, Justice Dudeja said: “You have another chance at the stage of charge. Why you want to close that door?…. There is another door available to you.”

Sibal responded that Yadav is entitled to invoke the High Court jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, emphasising that the cognizance taken was itself bad.

“I have Section 482 [of CrPC]. Why should I go before the trial court?….The cognizance itself is bad,” he said.

The counsel appearing for CBI submitted that Yadav misused his position as a public servant. He said that it was necessary to invoke Section 19 (prior sanction before prosecution of public servant) of the PC Act in order to prosecute Lalu Yadav. It is CBI's argument that prior sanction to investigate under section 17A was not required.

As per section 17A, a police officer cannot start an inquiry or investigation against a public servant for corruption without prior sanction, if the alleged offence is linked to a decision or recommendation the public servant made while doing the official duty.

Section 19 provides that a court cannot take cognizance of a corruption case under Sections 7, 11, 13, or 15 of the Act against a public servant unless it gets prior sanction from the appropriate authority. For employees of the Union Government who cannot be removed without its approval, the Central Government must give the sanction.

“Public servants were told by cronies of the minister to do these selections. Jobs are given in land was taken. He has misused his position. Section 19 [of PC Act] was necessary to be taken. Section 19 has been taken,” he said.

Praying for stay or deferment on framing of charges before the trial court, Sibal said that charge cannot be heard on an “illegal cognizance.”

He said: “Kindly see what the chargesheet says. “Lalu Prasad Yadav and others entered into conspiracies with general manager and other authorities of various zones of Indian railways and in furtherance of those conspiracies collected money through him.” The very charge is that I was in conspiracy with those people. He then said section 17A sanction is not required because I had no role to play before so I don't need 17A sanction. That is also factually wrong….Charge cannot be heard on an illegal cognizance…. If they have waited 14 years, they'll not wait for a month.”

It is Yadav's case that the investigations in the case have been initiated without obtaining a sanction mandated by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As per the plea, the said illegality was also ignored by the special judge.

Yadav has contended that he is being made to suffer through an “illegal motivated investigation” in clear violation of his fundamental right to fair investigation.

“Without such approval, any enquiry/inquiry/investigation undertaken would devoid ob 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,” the plea states.

It adds that the very registration of the preliminary enquiry and registration of the FIR were barred by Section 17A of the PC Act as it related to public servants. The filing of charge sheets and passing of the cognizance orders and all consequent actions must fall, the plea states.

CBI had filed a chargesheet in the case on October 10, 2022, against 16 persons. Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, daughter Misa Bharti and other individuals are accused in the matter.

It is the case of the agency that various residents of Bihar were appointed as substitutes in “Group-D posts” from 2004 to 2009 in different zones of Railways located at Mumbai, Jabalpur, Kolkata, Jaipur and Hajipur.

It has been alleged that in lieu of the same, the individuals themselves or their families transferred their land in the name of then Union Minister of Railways Lalu Prasad Yadav's family members and a company namely M/s AK Infosystems Private Limited, which was subsequently taken over by his family members.

CBI had claimed that the appointments made in the railways were not in consonance with the standards and guidelines established by the Indian Railways for hiring.

Title: SHRI LALU PRASAD YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION