Delhi HC dismisses Lalu Yadav's plea to quash CBI FIR in land-for-jobs case

NEw new new delhi: In a setback to Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Delhi heights margaret court on tues refused to quash a CBI FIR in the land-for-jobs case involving him and his family, rejecting the RJD supremo's contention that the agency's action was legally unsustainable in the absence of prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.In his order, Justice Ravinder Dudeja said the section was introduced in 2018 with prospective effect, whereas the allegations date back to 2004-2009, and the court was "persuaded" by the agency's stand that permitting a belated challenge on a technical plea relating to prior approval would defeat the "orderly administration of criminal justice".Justice Ravinder Dudeja dismissed the petition by Yadav, a former railway minister and ex-chief minister of Bihar, that also sought quashing of the three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024, and the subsequent orders of cognisance in the matter."The petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed," the judge said while pronouncing the verdict.The 'land-for-jobs' case is related to Group D appointments made in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railways in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, during Yadav's tenure as the rail minister between 2004 and 2009, allegedly in return for land parcels gifted or transferred by the recruits in the name of the RJD supremo's family or associates, officials said.Yadav had contended that the inquiry, FIR, as well as the investigation and subsequent chargesheets in the matter were legally unsustainable in the absence of prior sanction taken by the CBI under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.The court said that Section 17A, which was introduced in 2018, was prospective in operation and, therefore, has no application to the present offences, which were alleged to have been committed between 2004 and 2009.It thus held that the absence of prior approval did not vitiate the preliminary inquiry, registration of the FIR, investigation, or the cognisance orders.The court also said that the provision did not apply to this case as the alleged act was not related to any recommendations or decisions Yadav made while discharging his official functions or duties as the railway minister."The scope of Section 17A is confined to acts involving recommendations made or decisions taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions. But in this case, the petitioner was not in a position to make decisions about appointment, but could only influence," the court said."The prosecution case, as placed before the court, attributes the formal acts of appointment to the competent railway authorities, against whom approvals under Section 17A were admittedly obtained."Whether the petitioner exercised de facto influence or issued oral directions is a matter of evidence and cannot, at this stage, be determinative of the applicability of Section 17A," it added.The court observed that the subsequent grant of sanction in the case undermined Yadav's plea of prejudice, and the matter has progressed to an advanced stage.The CBI had opposed the petition, saying it was filed belatedly, at the stage of framing of charges.It was also contended that Section 17A did not apply to the petitioner.The court, in its judgement, said it was "persuaded" by the agency's stand that permitting a belated challenge on a technical plea relating to prior approval would defeat the "orderly administration of criminal justice".Yadav participated in the investigation, availed statutory remedies, and allowed multiple cognisance orders to attain finality, and the extraordinary jurisdiction and inherent powers of the high court cannot be invoked to bypass statutory limitations or to derail a prosecution at the threshold of trial, the court noted.It also took note of a Supreme Court decision to observe that corruption posed a grave threat to constitutional governance and the foundational values of Indian democracy as well as the rule of law, and, therefore, anti-graft laws must be interpreted to strengthen the fight against corruption.The case was registered on May 18, 2022, against Yadav and others, including his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private persons.Yadav, 77, and the other accused are currently out on bail. Yadav's petition challenging the framing of corruption charges in the case is pending in the high court.On January 9, the trial court had ordered framing charges against Yadav, his family members and others. On February 16, it formally framed charges against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act.Yadav has pleaded "not guilty".