![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Tuesday, Aug 02, 2005 |
| National |
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | National
Legal Correspondent
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Patna High Court to furnish details of promotion of Yogender Prasad, who was hearing the disproportionate assets cases against Railway Minister Lalu Prasad and his wife Rabri Devi, and appointment of Munnilal Paswan as special judge in his place. A Bench comprising Justice S.N. Variava, Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice S. H. Kapadia, hearing a public interest petition alleging interference in the fodder scam trial and income tax appeal cases against Mr. Prasad and Ms. Rabri Devi, asked the prosecution to complete its evidence. But defence arguments would begin only with the permission of the apex court. Petitioners Rajiv Ranjan Singh Lallan and Sushil Kumar Modi, while seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Mr. Prasad and his wife, questioned the transfer of the special judge. They wanted the trial stayed. For, it was in an advanced stage and its continuance would render the petition infructuous. To this, the Bench said, "We must not be presented with a fait accompli." Solicitor-General, G.E. Vahanvati, who opposed the plea for stay of the trial, suggested that the prosecution be allowed to continue with its evidence and that presentation of defence arguments be postponed.
Jethmalani apologises
Earlier, Ram Jethmalani, senior counsel, apologised to the court for the outburst of Mr. Prasad's counsel B.B. Singh on Friday last. Mr. Singh demanded to know from Justice Variava the name of the person who had contacted him. Mr. Jethmalani said it was done without instructions. "My clients have neither instigated nor ratified the utterances." On the plea for stay of the trial, Mr. Jethmalani submitted that the court could not give an interim order, which was in the shape of a final order that would frustrate the proceedings. Accepting Mr. Vahanvati's suggestion, the Bench said the prosecution could continue with arguments but defence need not begin its submissions. It posted the matter to September 20.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2005, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|