Under which provisions can graft trial be stayed,HC asks Yadav

Chargesheeted by the CBI for corruption,the retired High Court judge had moved the High Court,demanding a stay on the trial of cash-at-judge’s-door scam. Referring to a leading Supreme Court judgment passed in 2001 pertaining to corruption trials,the High Court has asked Yadav’s counsel to convince the court how a stay can be granted by the High Court in corruption cases.

According to the apex court judgment entitled Satya Narayan Sharma versus State of Rajasthan,the High Court cannot stay a corruption trial. “How do you wriggle out of this (judgment)?” the court asked Yadav to explain. Another question put to Yadav’s counsel was: “even if

proceedings are not stayed,how are you (Yadav) prejudiced?”

To respond to these queries,Yadav’s counsel sought time. The case will now come up for hearing on November 22. No notices have been issued by the court on Yadav’s application as yet.

In a damaging judgment,special CBI judge Vimal Kumar on July 31 had ruled that there is “overwhelming evidence” against Yadav and the other accused in the scam. In a 63-page judgment,first reported by The Indian Express,the special CBI judge had rejected the defence taken by Yadav and co-accused as “untenable”.

‘Wrong committed by trial judge rectified by HC’

WHEN Yadav’s counsel argued that the special CBI judge has decided to proceed with the trial after original record has been returned by the High Court by an administrative order,Justice N K Sanghi remarked that the “trial judge should not have sent the original record” to the High Court. He added that “wrong committed by the trial court has been rectified by the High Court. The trial judge should have sent photocopies of the record”.

Referring to an administrative order taken by the High Court in 2010,Justice Sanghi remarked that it was decided not to retain original record in any case in the High Court. On September 13,Justice Sanghi had admitted a revision petition filed by Justice Yadav challenging the original decision of the CBI court to frame charges against her and other accused in the scam. Justice Sanghi had summoned the entire record from the trial court. However,last month,the High Court had returned the original record to the CBI court and decided to maintain photocopies of the record.

“I do not know how this has come in the newspapers that this court never issued notices to the opposite party (CBI). It is presumed that notices are issued to the opposite party once a petition has been admitted. It was absolutely misleading,” Justice Sanghi remarked.

Earlier,when the petition came up for hearing,Justice Sanghi questioned Yadav’s counsel and the court staff how the application demanding a stay was listed before him. He remarked that once the revision petition stands admitted,it should come up for regular hearing before a bench which should also hear the application demanding a stay on the trial. However,the bench later agreed to hear the stay application.