Fodder scam: Lalu's plea rejected, SC for quick end to trial

In a big blow to RJD chief Lalu Prasad, the Supreme Court today rejected his plea for transfer of the Special CBI judge hearing the 1996 fodder scam case against him in Jharkhand and asked the trial court to pronounce the verdict expeditiously.
It also questioned the RJD MP and former Bihar chief minister for doubting the impartiality of the special CBI court judge against him at the fag end of the trial when the date of pronouncement of verdict was fixed for July 15.
Considering that the trial against Lalu Prasad and others have been going on for the last 16 years, the apex court also directed the Special CBI court to wrap up the proceedings in the alleged fraudulent withdrawal of Rs 37.7 crore from Chaibasa Treasury in 20 days of hearing.

A bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam dismissed the allegations of RJD supremo that the trial judge, being a relative of a minister in the Nitish Kumar government, is biased against him and rejected his plea for the judge's transfer from the case.
"We have already highlighted that the prosecution was initiated as early as in 1997 and after prolonged trial, the matter has reached final stage, namely, 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," the 15-page judgement said.

"If the appellant (Lalu) 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," the apex court said.

The bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said that it was not inclined to entertain the allegations levelled against the judge. In support of his allegations, the RJD Chief had placed some photographs in which a relative of the judge was seen with Chief Minister of Bihar, Nitish Kumar.
"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 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," the judgement said.