E-Paper
CBI opposes Lalu plea against FIR in jobs case
A bench of justice Ravinder Dudeja heard the arguments and said it would pass orders on the petition
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told the Delhi high court on Thursday that it was not necessary to obtain prior sanction to probe the role of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in the land for job scam as it opposed the former Union minister’s petition seeking quashing of the first information report (FIR) filed against him.
In his petition before the HC, Prasad asserted that CBI commenced its inquiry against him in complete violation of section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates police officers to seek prior approval before conducting an inquiry, investigation or trial into an alleged corruption offence by a public servant, if it relates to official recommendations or decisions.
CBI, represented by Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) DP Singh, told the court that Prasad had “misused” his position as railway minister, through his “cronies and the only sanction required was for prosecution in the corruption case, which the agency had taken. He further pointed out that the RJD chief had directly approached the high court when the argument on charge is yet to commence in the case before a trial court.
A bench of justice Ravinder Dudeja heard the arguments and said it would pass orders on the petition.
Singh said, “He (Prasad) is misusing his position. Whoever was taking decisions or making recommendations, section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act sanction was taken, but in his case, he (Prasad) was misusing his position through his cronies, thus sanction under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates prior sanction for prosecution of public servants implicated in corruption cases, was not taken.”
He added, “He (Prasad) is directly coming for quashing, when the argument on charge is yet to commence.”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal representing Prasad said that the city court’s 2023 order taking cognisance of the charge sheet filed against him was “bad” since it had failed to ignore the illegality committed by CBI during the investigation.
Before the court concluded submissions, Sibal sought a stay on the trial court proceedings, stating that the arguments on framing of charges had to commence from June 2.
However, the court indicated that it would pass orders and said, “You’re still going to be heard before the argument on charge. He’ll (city court) hear you… At the stage of framing of charge, this plea can be taken that the approval has not been granted..”
