2006 (8) TMI 606 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the petitioners could not prove anything that these respondents have interfered in the course of justice and they misused the privilege of bail extended to them?

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged delay and interference in judicial process.
2. Appointment of a new prosecutor.
3. Alleged irregularities in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cases.
4. Appointment of the Special Judge.
5. Prayer for re-engagement of the earlier prosecutor.
6. Prayer for Writ of Mandamus directing appeals against ITAT orders.
7. Prayer for cancellation of bail of respondents 4 and 5.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Delay and Interference in Judicial Process:
The petitioners, former Members of Parliament, filed writ petitions alleging large-scale defalcation of public funds in Bihar's Department of Animal Husbandry. They claimed that after a change in the central government, attempts were made to delay and interfere with judicial processes, including the removal of public prosecutors to benefit respondents 4 and 5, former Chief Ministers of Bihar. The court found no substantial evidence supporting these allegations.

2. Appointment of a New Prosecutor:
The petitioners alleged that the Director of CBI changed the prosecutor at the final stage of the trial to help the accused. The court noted that the earlier prosecutor, Shri L.R. Ansari, had completed examining witnesses and arguments, and his reassignment was due to other responsibilities. The new prosecutor, Shri Oma Shankar Sharma, had significant experience. The court found no evidence of undue influence or interference by respondents 4 and 5 in the appointment of the new prosecutor.

3. Alleged Irregularities in ITAT Cases:
The petitioners claimed that respondent nos. 4 and 5 influenced the transfer of ITAT member Shri D.K. Tyagi and expedited favorable decisions by appointing Shri Mohanarajan, who was nearing retirement. The court reviewed the President of ITAT's report and found that Tyagi's transfer was due to personal reasons and disciplinary issues, not undue influence. The court also noted that the decisions not to appeal ITAT orders were based on legal opinions from the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ministry of Law, finding no procedural irregularities or undue influence.

4. Appointment of the Special Judge:
The petitioners alleged that the appointment of Shri Muni Lal Paswan as the Special Judge was irregular and intended to benefit respondents 4 and 5. The court reviewed the records and found that the Standing Committee of the Patna High Court, consisting of senior judges, had validly appointed Paswan. The court found no evidence of poor record or procedural irregularities in his appointment.

5. Prayer for Re-engagement of the Earlier Prosecutor:
The petitioners requested the re-engagement of the earlier prosecutor, Shri Ansari. The court noted that Ansari had already been reassigned to other cases and found no necessity for his re-engagement. However, the CBI was given liberty to utilize his services if needed.

6. Prayer for Writ of Mandamus Directing Appeals Against ITAT Orders:
The petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the authorities to file appeals against ITAT orders favoring respondents 4 and 5. The court held that a third party cannot seek such remedies in collateral proceedings and found no evidence of procedural irregularities or undue influence in the decision not to appeal. Hence, the prayer for Writ of Mandamus was rejected.

7. Prayer for Cancellation of Bail of Respondents 4 and 5:
The petitioners requested the cancellation of bail granted to respondents 4 and 5, alleging interference in the judicial process. The court found no evidence that the respondents misused their bail privileges or were likely to flee from justice. Therefore, the prayer for cancellation of bail was denied.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the allegations of judicial interference, irregularities in ITAT proceedings, improper appointment of the Special Judge, or misuse of bail by respondents 4 and 5. All interim orders were vacated.

← Previous Next →