Fodder cases transferred

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, OCT. 5. The Supreme Court today ordered the transfer of 36 cases relating to the `Rs. 720-crore fodder scam', involving two former Bihar Chief Ministers, Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav (who is also the Rashtriya Janata Dal president) and Dr. Jagannath Mishra, from Bihar to Jharkhand.

Disposing of the special leave petitions (SLPs) filed by the CBI against the judgment of the Patna High Court that these cases could remain in Bihar, a three-judge Bench, comprising Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas, Mr. Justice S.S.M. Quadri and Mr. Justice U.C. Banerjee, held that as the offences were committed within Jharkhand, the cases should be tried by courts within its jurisdiction.

It observed that by the operation of Section 89 of the State Reorganisation Act, all 36 cases involved in these appeals stood transferred to the corresponding courts situated within Jharkhand on the appointed day, November 15, 2000. It directed the Registrar of the Patna High Court to instruct the officers concerned to despatch the records of all 36 cases to the corresponding Jharkhand courts forthwith. It also directed the Registrar, Jharkhand High Court, to do whatever was needed for reaching such records in the appropriate courts.

The Bench made it clear that the evidence already recorded would be treated as recorded by the proper court having jurisdiction and the special judge need not call again the witnesses already examined.

It was the case of the CBI that these cases stood transferred to Jharkhand from November 15, 2000. The claim was resisted by Mr. Yadav, Dr. Mishra and other accused. A Full Bench of the Patna High Court took the view that none of the cases need be transferred to Jharkhand. Against this order, the CBI preferred the present SLPs.

Mr. Justice Thomas, speaking for the Bench, observed that it was admitted by both sides that in all the 36 cases the allegations pertained to withdrawal of crores of rupees made from treasuries located in the territories of Jharkhand. He said it must not be forgotten that transfer of criminal cases was not the only subject covered by Section 89 of the Act.

The provision sought to allocate the files or records relating to all proceedings after bifurcation if they were to be instituted after the appointed day. ``Any interpretation should be one which achieves that object and not that which might create confusion or perplexity or even bewilderment to the officers of the respective States.''

When the offence alleged was under Section 13 (1) (c) or Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the sole determinative factor regarding the court having jurisdiction was the place where the offence was committed, Mr. Justice Thomas said and set aside the impugned judgments.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Front Page
Previous : Blair puts Taliban on notice
Next     : Violence mars Bihar bandh