Big blow to Lalu Yadav and Rabri Devi from the court in Land for Jobs case, petition rejected

Lalu Prasad Yadav and Rabri Devi have received a big blow from Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court. The court rejected the petition filed by both of them. Court refuses to provide non-reliable documents in land-for-jobs case. The court said that the accused do not have the right to get every document. First the prosecution will present its evidence, the hearing will be held on that basis. Without solid defence, the accused are not allowed to ask for additional documents. The court said that there is no harm to the accused by rejecting the petition. The court also rejected similar petitions of other accused.

Petitions of two other accused also canceled

‘Unrelied’ documents are those materials which are seized by the investigating agencies but are not relied upon in the prosecution’s complaint. The court said that the purpose of these petitions is to “push the case into the maze of complexities at the very beginning”. Special Judge Vishal Gogane said that making these documents available outright would not only amount to “reverse Ganga” but would also “completely disorganize” the judicial process. He also rejected the petitions of two other accused – Lalu Prasad’s private secretary (PS) RK Mahajan and former railway general manager Maheep Kapoor. Mahajan had requested to provide one ‘unreleased’ document and Kapoor had requested to provide 23 such documents.

‘It seems that the applicants have an ulterior motive to prolong the proceedings’

Justice Gogane, in a 35-page order passed on Wednesday, said the court’s statutory control over the trial cannot be “usurped by the accused in the guise of cross-examination” and that the applicants appeared to have an “ulterior motive” to prolong the proceedings. The Court said that it is necessary to record evidence in accordance with the statutory provisions to ensure the right to a fair trial and speedy conclusion of the proceedings.

‘No condition can be allowed to be imposed on continuation of judicial proceedings’

The court said that the accused are requesting that all or some of the ‘unrelied’ documents be made available to them before starting the defense preparations, that is, the availability of such documents is being presented as a condition for starting the cross-examination. Terming the pleas as “unacceptable”, the court said the accused “cannot be allowed to impose any conditions on the continuation of judicial proceedings”. The court said the accused had already been given ample opportunity to inspect the documents, which form part of the body of evidence not used in the prosecution complaint.