Carlos
------------------------------
Time running out for Lalu
In a judgement that could expedite the verdict in the Rs 48 lakh Disproportionate Asset (DA) case against Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and his wife Rabri Devi, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set a one month deadline for the Patna High Court to decide on the RJD chief's plea for quashing the DA case against him on the question of "legality" of Governor's sanction for his prosecution.
The Supreme Court also took serious objection to the Law Ministry's decision not to appeal against the dismissal of Income Tax cases against Mr Yadav and his wife Rabri Devi by the Appellate Tribunal at Patna.
The apex court asked the Patna High Court to constitute a bench headed by Justice Aftab Alam to decide issues pertaining to sanction as early as possible and not later than 30 days from Tuesday. The matter will come up before Supreme Court for hearing on May 10.
The twin developments are major setbacks for the Lalu-Rabri duo, who had virtually stalled the pronouncement of verdict in the DA case by seeking repeated adjournments before the HC and trial court.
A three-judge bench, comprising Justice SN Variawa, Justice AR Lakshmanan and Justice SH Kapadia, were hearing a petition by BJP MP Sushil Modi and JD(U) MP Lallan Singh seeking cancellation of Lalu Prasad's bail in fodder scam cases on allegation of Centre's interferences in the functioning of the CBI and income tax authorities.
The major fall-out of the court's Tuesday ruling will be on the DA case in which - on a petition of Rabri Devi - the SC had earlier ruled that trial court will reserve its verdict till the question of legality of Governor's sanction for prosecution was settled by the Patna High Court.
The dice seemed to be loaded against Mr Lalu Prasad because the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had on December 5 ruled that state governors had right to give sanction for prosecution of chief ministers and minister without the approval of council of ministers.
The SC had felt that council of ministers could not be expected to be fair in deciding on giving nod for prosecution of CM and ministers.
The SC's intervention came after petitioner's counsel Mukul Rohtagi forcefully argued that the HC was seized with the issue of legality of governor's sanction for a long time and any more delay was unwarranted.
It was alleged by petitioners that the appeal filed by Mr Prasad is doing rounds before various benches in the High Court and taking advantage of this Mr Prasad and his wife were taking repeated adjournments in the trial of the DA case.
Incidentally, a Division Bench of justice BK Jha and justice Ms Indu Prabha Singh had completed the hearing on Lalu's plea on December 5 and reserved the judgement.
However, Mr Jha retired without pronouncing the verdict and fresh bench comprising justice Ms Singh and justice Ghanshyam Prasad was then constituted to hear the case afresh. But midway through, Mr Prasad expressed his inability to hear the case. It was back to square one again.
Taking note of the petitioner's plea that IT authoritis had quashed huge tax demand against Mr Prasad and Mrs Rabri Devi after officials were inducted from Delhi following installation of UPA Government at the Centre, the SC asked the Solicitor General to inform about the opinion of the Director General of Investigation as (IT) well as that of the Additional Solicitor General in this regard by May 10. Sensing the mood of the Supreme Court Bench, the Solicitor General promised that the cases quashed against Lalu Prasad by the Income Tax Apellate Tribunal, Patna, would be appealed in the High Court.
The court asked as how the Appellate Tribunal considered the voluntary returns filed by Mr Prasad and his wife for the assessment year 1986-1996 as full and complete and wanted to know what has the government done over the income tax returns filed by him from the assessment year 1996-97.
Expressing surprise over the opinion for non-filing of the appeal given by Additional Solicitor General Mohan Prasaran, the bench asked "does in every Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) appeal case go to an ASG for opinion?"
When the reply was in negative, the bench said even if the allegation that the ITAT bench was constituted in a "malafide" manner, the questions remain as to how the ITAT could dispose of 24 it cases against Mr Prasad and his wife in a 136-page judgement in addition to disposing off 111 cases in a short span of 10 days.
The Supreme Court asked the Patna High Court to constitute a bench headed by justice Aftab Ahmed to decide on issues pertaining to sanction as early as possible and not later than 30 days from today. The matter will come up before Supreme Court for hearing on May 10.
In a "malafide" manner, the questions remain as to how the ITAT could dispose of 24 cases against Mr Prasad and his wife in a 136-page judgement in addition to disposing off 111 cases in a short span of 10 days.
SC verdict setback for Rly Minister
* Patna HC to dispose of legality of Governor's sanction within a month
* Evidence weighs heavily against Lalu Prasad in Disproportionate Asset case
* If HC dismisses Lalu's plea, then Disproportionate Asset case verdict to be expected
* Conviction noose hangs over Lalu's head
