The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told the Delhi High Court on Thursday that it did not need permission to look into Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav’s part in the land for job scam because it was against the former Union minister’s request to throw out the first information report (FIR) that was filed against him.
In his petition to the High Court, Prasad stated that the CBI initiated its investigation against him without following Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This section states that police officers must obtain permission before investigating or prosecuting someone for allegedly corrupt behaviour as a public servant if it involves official decisions or recommendations.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) DP Singh spoke on behalf of the CBI in court and stated that Prasad had “misused” his power as railway minister to benefit his friends and that the only permission required was to bring the corruption case to court, which had been done. He also stated that the head of the RJD had gone directly to the high court before the charge hearing had even begun in the case before a trial court.
After hearing both sides, a bench led by Justice Ravinder Dudeja said it would decide on the appeal.
Singh said, “He (Prasad) is abusing his power.” Anyone who made decisions or suggestions was punished under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. But Prasad was abusing his power through his friends, so he wasn’t penalised under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which says that public servants involved in corruption cases must first be punished before they can be prosecuted.
He also said, “He (Prasad) is coming right away to get the charge thrown out, even though the argument hasn’t even started yet.”
Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, who was defending Prasad, stated that the 2023 order by the city court to take note of the charge sheet filed against him was “bad” because it failed to acknowledge that the CBI had committed an error during the investigation.
Before the court ended the arguments, Sibal requested that the trial court proceedings be put on hold, stating that arguments regarding the framing of the charges were scheduled to begin on June 2.
However, the court stated, “You’re still going to be heard before the argument on a charge,” which meant that it would issue orders. He (the judge) will hear you… When the charge is being made, this plea that permission has not been given can be used.
