SC reserves order on PIL in fodder scam

New Delhi, July 26 (UNI) The Supreme Court today reserved its judgment on a public interest litigation seeking prosecution of Railway Minister Lalu Prasad and his wife Rabri Devi for their alleged involvement in Rs 500 crore fodder scam and for amassing assets disproportionate to their known sources of income.

The petitioners Rajiv Ranjan Singh alias Lallan, an MP and deputy chief minister of Bihar Sushil Kumar Modi have sought a number of reliefs including cancellation of bail granted to Mr Prasad and former Bihar chief minister Rabri Devi, challenging the transfer of the special judge Yogendra Prasad who was about to conclude the trial and also the appointment of new special judge Muni Lal Paswan.

The petitioners have alleged that the scam in the Bihar animal husbandry department took place from 1977 to 1995. They also contended that the decision of the government not to file an appeal against the order of income tax appellate tribunal acquitting both Mr Prasad and his wife was also not proper and the entire exercise was aimed at shielding the influential accused in the case.

Even the Solicitor General G E Vahanvati, appearing for the CBI, at one stage admitted the fact saying that ''better course would have been to file an appeal''.

Registrar General of Patna High court who appeared in person before the apex court today was not able to reply convincingly to the queries made by the bench comprising Justices K G Balakrishnan, A R Lakshamanan and S H Kapadia.

The bench directed the Registrar General to file an affidavit today itself, which he filed this evening stating that in case of new special judge Muni Lal Paswan, his confidential report was prepared by the district judge concerned upto 2003 when he was a civil judge and high court was nowhere in picture.

The High Court has prepared his Annual Confidential Report only after he became additional district judge. The bench also enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, ''whether this court can direct revenue authorities to file an appeal in any case and even when they are not a party in the present case''.

The court also took exception to the fact that even the High Court has not been made a party in the case. Earlier, senior counsel Ram Jethmalani appearing for Mr Prasad said it was not the case where this court should interfere with the administrative decision of the High Court to appoint a particular judge in a case.

He also contended that it will set a bad precedent for future and no judge will hear to acquit Mr Prasad and Rabri Devi in the corruption case after this petition having been entertained by this court. He termed the petition ''politically motivated and frivolous.'' MORE UNI AKS/SC YA KN1636