http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (crl.)  197-198 of 2004

PETITIONER: Rajiv Ranjan Singh ’Lalan’ & Anr.                                

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors.                                            

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/08/2006

BENCH: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.

       These  writ petitions are filed as Public Interest Litigation by the  two petitioners herein who were Members of the Parliament at the  time of filing the petitions.  Respondent nos. 4 and 5 were formerly  Chief Ministers of the State of Bihar.  It is alleged by the petitioners  that they filed writ petitions before the High Court of Patna alleging  large-scale defalcation of public funds and falsification of accounts  involving hundreds of crores of rupees in the Department of Animal  Husbandary in the State of Bihar and pursuant to these allegations,  several cases were registered by the Police and investigation of  these cases was later handed over to the Central Bureau of  Investigation.  In an earlier petition filed before this Court on  19.3.1996, this Court directed that the investigation shall be  monitored by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court and in that  Order, it was indicated that the CBI Officers entrusted with the  investigation shall inform the Chief Justice of Patna High Court from  time to time of the progress made in the investigation and if they  needed any directions in the matter of conducting the investigation,  obtain them from him and it was also said that the learned Chief  Justice may either post the matter for directions before a Bench  presided over by him or constitute any other appropriate Bench.  It  was also directed  that the State Government shall co-operate in  assigning adequate number of Special judges to deal with the cases  expeditiously so that no evidence may be lost.

       The petitioners allege that consequent upon change of the  Government in the Centre, attempts have been made to delay and  interfere with the judicial process.  It is alleged that the public  prosecutors who were handling the cases were removed and to  protect the interests of respondent nos. 4 and 5, convenient  prosecutor was appointed.

       The respondent no. 5 is an accused in a case registered under  the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  The case is filed pursuant to  the FIR registered as no. R.C. 5[A] 498/AHD-Pat dated 19.8.1998.   The allegation in that case is that respondent no. 5 as Chief Minister  of Bihar between 1990 to 1996 had acquired assets disproportionate  to his  known sources of income.  Chargesheet was filed in the Court  of the Special Judge, CBI, Patna on 4.4.2000 under Section 13(1)(e)  of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988.  Respondent no. 4 also  was charge sheeted in the same case for abetment under Section  109 of the IPC read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(e) of the  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  This case has been re-numbered  as Special Case No. 5/1998 and is pending trial in the Court of the  Special Judge, CBI, Patna.  The petitioners allege that certain income  tax cases of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were pending before the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and one Mr. D.K. Tyagi who  was a member of the ITAT had been hearing those cases and  that  respondent nos. 4 and 5 found it difficult to pursue the hearings  before the said ITAT member and hence at their influence Mr. Tyagi  was sent on deputation and he was replaced by one Mr.  Mohanaranjan who was on the verge of retirement. It is further  alleged that the new member alongwith another member heard these  cases within two weeks and orders were pronounced in favour of  respondent nos. 4 and 5.  It is also alleged that respondent no. 3,  namely, the Central Board of Direct Taxes did not prefer appeal in  these cases though the decision went against the revenue.  This,  according to the petitioners, was to help respondent nos. 4 and 5 in  the cases filed against them based on the allegation that they  acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of income.

       The petitioners have also alleged that the Special Case No.  5/1998 pending before the Special Judge, CBI was at the final stage  of hearing and that the Director, CBI, presumably under pressure  from the accused changed the prosecutor and appointed one Shri  Oma Shankar Singh who was only a retired Deputy Superintendent of  Delhi Police and had no experience of conducting the prosecution.    According to the prosecution, this was done at the fag end of the  prosecution case to help the accused.  The petitioners have made  allegations against respondents 1 to 3 also that they were acting  arbitrarily and interfering in the judicial process to benefit the  respondent nos. 4 and 5.  The petitioners have alleged that  respondent nos. 4 and 5 obtained stay of proceedings of the case  pending before the Special Judge from this Court suppressing some  material facts.  It is alleged that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 still wield  influence and power and, therefore, this Court should monitor the trial  of the case pending before the Special Judge, CBI, at Patna.

       In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have prayed mainly four  reliefs.  The first relief prayed is to issue an appropriate writ, order or  direction monitoring the conduct of the trials relating to fodder scam  cases proceedings against respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the States of  Bihar & State of Jharkhand.  The second prayer is to appoint the very  same prosecutor who had been conducting prosecution earlier and to  direct the High Court to see that no prosecutor or CBI Officer  attached with the investigation and trial of the case should be  removed, harassed or victimized for discharging their duties.  The  petitioners have also prayed that at least one inspector be provided  for each fodder case.  The petitioners have also prayed for  cancellation of bail granted to respondent nos. 4 and 5.  Petitioners  have further prayed for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to file an  appeal against the orders passed by the ITAT.                  During the pendency of these Writ Petitions, the Counsel for the  petitioners alleged that the Special Judge who was trying the case  involving respondent nos. 4 and 5, was being replaced by another  Special Judge.  The allegation was that one Shri Yogender Prasad  was the CBI Special Judge and he was being replaced by one       Shri Muni Lal Paswan and this according to the petitioners was  deliberately done to help the respondent nos. 4 and 5.  In view of the  allegations made by the petitioners, this Court on 1.8.2005 directed  the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to send details and  files as to when Judge Shri Yogender Prasad was promoted as a  District Judge and all papers regarding posting of the subsequent   officer Shri Muni Lal Paswan.  As regards the posting of Shri Muni Lal  Paswan as a Special Judge, this Court again passed an Order on  26.10.2005 and the Registrar of the High Court was directed to give  further clarification in the matter.  The Registrar General of the High  Court of Patna appeared in person before us and filed an affidavit  giving out the details leading to the decision of the Standing  Committee of the High Court to post Shri Muni Lal Paswan as a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

Special Judge, CBI case Patna.  

       In view of the allegations made by the petitioners in respect of  the cases pending before the ITAT, the President of the ITAT was  directed to send all papers pertaining to the constitution of the Bench  of Shri P. Mohanarajan and Shri M.K. Sarkar which disposed of the  various appeals pending before the ITAT.  The President of the ITAT  has submitted a report and also produced relevant papers before us.   

       In view of the allegation made by the petitioners regarding the  appointment of a new prosecutor in place of earlier prosecutor, this  Court directed the 3rd respondent to produce the entire files including  the notations pertaining to the appointment of Shri Oma Shankar  Sharma as Prosecutor.

       Refuting the allegations contained in the Writ Petition, detailed  counter-affidavits have been filed by the respondents.  In the joint  counter-affidavit of respondent nos. 4 and 5, they have alleged that  the writ petitions contain vague and indefinite allegations and they are  made with political motive to satisfy their personal grudge and that  this is an abuse of the process of the Court.  The respondents have  alleged that the Public Interest Litigation shall not be used for private  or political motives or for other consideration.  It is also alleged that  Special Case no. 5/98 pending before the Special Judge is a case  registered under Sections 13(2) and 13(1) of the Prevention of  Corruption Act and it has nothing to do with the ’fodder scam’ case.   The various allegations made in the Writ Petitions have been denied  specifically.   

       We heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri Mukul Rohtagi for  the petitioner and Solicitor General appearing for respondents 1 to 3  and also the learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5.  At the  time of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioners  submitted that the petitioners in the present facts and circumstances  of the case only pray for appointment of an appropriate prosecutor to  conduct the case pending before the Special Judge and that the bail  of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 be cancelled and Respondent no. 3  be directed to file appeals against the orders passed by the ITAT.   The petitioners also submitted arguments to the effect that the  appointment of the present Special Judge was not done properly. No  specific prayer was made by the petitioners to change the Presiding  Officer. They, however, submitted a request that High Court may be  directed to reconsider the appointment and posting of Shri Muni Lal  Paswan as a Special Judge.

       We shall first consider the prayer of the petitioners as to  whether any irregularities have been committed in the matter of  disposal of cases  against respondent nos. 4 and 5  by the Income  Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna.  The petitioners have alleged that Shri  D.K. Tyagi, who had been hearing the cases of respondent nos. 4  and 5 and proving to be difficult during the course of the hearing, was  curiously sent on deputation and was replaced by Shri Mohanarajan,  who was on the verge of the retirement, to head the Tribunal. It is  further alleged that Shri Mohanarajan picked up only two cases  pertaining to respondent nos. 4 and 5 even though the  matter had  been heard fully by another bench, and within two weeks, the cases  were heard and allowed in favour of the assessees namely  respondent nos. 4 and 5, and that he had no background of the case  and had not disposed of any other matter.  The petitioners alleged  that after the disposal of these cases by the Tribunal, steps were not  taken to file appeal against these orders and that was done at the  instance of respondent nos. 4 and 5.

       The entire allegations made by the petitioners are denied.  The  President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal submitted a report

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

regarding the manner in which income tax cases of respondent nos. 4  and 5 were disposed of by the Tribunal.  The President has stated  that he took over as the President of ITAT on 31.10.2003 and at that  time a petition filed by Respondent no. 5 for transfer of cases from  Patna to Delhi was pending.  The Department after considering the  legal aspects declined to transfer the cases of respondent no. 5 to  Delhi.  It was suggested and noted on the files "it may perhaps be  worthwhile to consider constituting a Special Bench for early  disposal of these appeals".  Shri D.K. Tyagi sent a representation  on 12.1.2004 praying that he may be transferred to Delhi as his  mother was 80 years old and with deteriorating health and that he  was anxious to arrange marriage of his daughter and his son was  studying at Delhi.  There were some other developments also as Shri  D.K. Tyagi had left India without permission and a show-cause notice  was issued to him.  He filed an explanation and came over to Delhi to  personally explain the things and he was allowed to remain at Delhi  for some period and the President of the ITAT, with a view to  inculcate judicial discipline, decorum and proper behaviour from the  Bench, made Shri Tyagi to sit in Delhi Bench of the ITAT alongwith  the seniormost Accountant Member.  There were also other  circumstances whereby Shri. Tyagi wanted his transfer from Patna to  avoid recurrence of another incident in view of the repeated  confrontations with the Bar.  It was under these circumstances Shri  Mohanarajan was directed to camp at Patna in June, 2004.  Another  member Shri Aggarwal also expressed his inability to camp at Patna.   Shri P. Mohanarajan alongwith Shri M.K. Sarkar who was a senior  member of the Tribunal, dealt with the cases of respondent nos. 4  and 5.  The President has also refuted an allegation that Shri Sarkar  was selected to camp at Delhi only for a short period to dispose of  this case.  He has brought to our notice that the Bench disposed of  11 appeals of respondent no. 5 and several other cases and that 136  cases were disposed of during that period and the list of such cases  and details are given at Annexure I.

       As regards non-filing of the appeals against the order passed  by ITAT, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII in New Delhi  had filed affidavit wherein it is stated that the question was referred to  the Central Board of Direct Taxes for consideration and he had  sought opinion from the Ministry of Law.  The Central Board of Direct  Taxes and the Ministry of Finance obtained the opinion of the Ministry  of Law to the effect that no substantial questions of law arose out of  the judgments of the ITAT in the cases of respondent nos. 4 and 5 for  filing appeals before the High Court and thus instructions were issued  not to appeal against these cases.

       The allegations made by the petitioners that there were serious  irregularities in disposing of the cases of respondent nos. 4 and 5 are  not factually correct.  The very foundation of the allegation is that Shri  Tyagi, member of the Appellate Tribunal was transferred from Patna  to Delhi at a time when he was hearing appeals is factually incorrect.   It is also not correct to say that appeals were disposed of by the  member of the Tribunal who was on the verge of retirement.  The  petitioners could not point out any procedural irregularity in the  manner in which these appeals were disposed of.  After going  through the affidavits and reports and various other papers, we are  satisfied that the allegations made by the petitioners are not true.   The petitioners have prayed that this Court should direct the  authorities to file appeal against the orders passed by ITAT in the  cases of  respondent nos. 4 and 5.  In a  collateral proceedings like  this, the petitioner cannot seek any remedy of Writ of Mandamus  directing the authorities to file appeals against such orders.  An  appeal is a statutory remedy available to the Department and the  third party like Writ Petitioner cannot seek such remedies in collateral  proceedings like this.  Moreover, the petitioners could not point out  anything to show that there were serious procedural irregularities on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

the part of the Department in not filing the appeal.  The Department  had taken opinion of the Central Board of Direct Taxes as well as the  Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Finance had sought the  opinion of the Ministry of Law. The petitioners have not made any  specific allegation that these  decisions were taken at the behest of  respondent nos. 4 and 5 or any undue influence was  exerted to take  such decisions.  The allegations made by the petitioners are vague  and indefinite.  Therefore, the prayer for Writ of Mandamus to direct  the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to file an appeal against the ITAT orders  cannot be allowed and is liable to be rejected.

       The next prayer of the petitioners is that the Special Judge who  is dealing with the CBI cases at Patna was not properly appointed by  the High Court of Patna and another Judge who was dealing with this  case was suddenly transferred to help respondent nos. 4 and 5.  It  may be noticed, at the outset, that no such allegations have been  made in the original Writ Petition.  The petitioners filed IA as Criminal  Miscellaneous Petition nos. 6589-6590 of 2005 wherein certain  allegations have been made.  Subsequent to this filing of these  interim petitions, the original writ petition was not amended and no  prayer was incorporated in the relief portion as to whether the present  Special Judge is to be removed or not.  In the interlocutory  application  as Criminal Miscellaneous Petition nos. 6589-6590 of  2005, the petitioners alleged that taking undue advantage of the  ongoing summer vacations, in an attempt to over reach the orders  passed by this Hon’ble Court which was already seized of the matter  in its entirety, the Patna High Court on the administrative side, has  directed the transfer of the Special Judge(AHD), Patna.  Such act  according to the petitioners amounts to contempt of this Hon’ble  Court and the petitioners reserved their right to initiate appropriate  proceedings for contempt against the persons responsible for the  same.  The petitioners sought for stay of the transfer of the then  Special Judge Shri Yogender Prasad.  This Court on 1.8.2005  passed the following order:

"At the request of the learned counsel appearing for  the parties, the petitions are fixed for hearing on 20th  September, 2005.

 In the meantime, the prosecution arguments may  continue but thereafter the trial to remain stayed and  defence argument not to start without further orders of  this Court.

  The Registrar General of the Patna High Court to  send the details and files when Judge Yogender Prasad  was promoted as a District Judge and all papers  regarding posting of the present incumbent Shri Muni Lal  Paswan."

       This Court declined to grant stay of transfer of Special Judge  Shri Yogender Prasad as he was promoted to the post of Principal  Sessions Judge.  This Court also passed an Order on 26.12.2005  wherein the details regarding the appointment of the present  incumbent Shri Muni Lal Paswan were sought from the High Court.   The entire records relating to the appointment of Shri Muni Lal  Paswan as a special judge CBI, Patna have been produced in this  case including the Confidential Registers of the various officers.  On  perusal of these records, we find that the Standing Committee of the  High Court took a decision to post Shri Muni Lal Paswan as the CBI  Special Judge, Patna.  Six senior most judges of the High Court of  Patna constituted the Standing Committee of the High Court and the  decision was taken in the meeting of the Committee held on 22nd  June, 2005. The decision of the Standing Committee is recorded as  follows:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

"Having considered the relevant service records of  the officers concerned as also taking into consideration  the fact that no allegation petition has been received  against Sri Muni Lal Paswan, Additional District Judge,  Sahara.  It is resolved that let him (Sri Muni Lal Paswan)  be posted as Special Judge for C.B.I.(Fodder Scam  Cases) at Patna.  It is further resolved upon  consideration of the relevant service records of the  officers concerned that Shri J.P. Ratnesh, Additional  District Judge, Patna, be posted as Special Judge, C.B.I.  (South Bihar) and Sri Ram Niwas Prasad, Additional  District Judge, Patna, as Special Judge for Vigilance  Case (Court No. 1).

In view of the urgency of the matter, the officer Is  directed to take necessary steps for issue of notification  immediately."

       Though the petitioners have not made any allegations in the  Writ Petitions, at the time of argument, the learned Senior Counsel  stated that Shri Muni Lal Paswan was having poor record and he was  not senior to be appointed as a Special Judge.  We have perused the  Confidential Register of Shri Muni Lal Paswan which was made  available to us.  Of course, the Confidential Register of this Officer  was available only upto 2003.  For some period, he was working on  deputation and the inspecting judge had not recorded the confidential  registers for that period,  though the confidential registers of other  officers were available to the Standing Committee.  The Confidential  Reports of Shri Muni Lal Paswan from 1981 to 2003 have been  produced in Court.  We have perused the Confidential Register of this  Officer and it has been repeatedly recorded that this Officer has  maintained phonesty and integrity during the period under report.   About his conduct and integrity, nothing adverse is reported against  him.  Of course, in some of the years, this Officer has been graded as  ’Category B’ with regard to his judicial performance.  These are all  matters considered by the Standing Committee which consists of  senior judges of the High Court.  The appointment of this Officer is  not challenged by the petitioners and no pleadings also made in the  main Writ Petition.  By filing a Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the  petitioners have made series of allegations which are not borne out  by any records.  If at all, the petitioners had any grievance regarding  the appointment of any particular Officer, the proper remedy was to  approach the High Court and to bring this fact to the notice of the  Chief Justice.  Under the above circumstances, we do not find any  material on record to show that there was any illegality or serious  infraction of any procedure in the appointment of the present CBI  (Special Judge), Patna and the appointment as such cannot be  challenged in a collateral proceedings and this Court cannot go into  the question of appointment of a Special Judge which is exclusively  within the domain of the High Court under Article 235 of the  Constitution.  Therefore, the oral appeal of the petitioners for the  change of the Officer of the Special Judge cannot be granted.

       The learned Counsel for the petitioners also alleged that the  public prosecutor who was conducting the case no. 5/98 against the  respondent nos. 4 and 5 was removed by the Director of the CBI  presumably under pressure from the accused and one Uma Shankar  Singh was appointed and he was a Deputy Superintendent of Delhi  Police and had commenced his law practice only recently.  The  petitioners alleged that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were  unnecessarily interfering in the course of justice and managed to  change the public prosecutor who was diligently discharging his  duties.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

       In the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, the  petitioners reiterated their allegation and stated that Shri L.R. Ansari  who had been conducting the disproportionate assets case, had  examined 225 witnesses, was sent elsewhere and some other public  prosecutor was appointed.  Refuting all these allegations, a counter- affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 CBI.  In the counter- affidavit, it is stated that disproportionate assets case against  respondent nos. 4 and 5 was being conducted by Shri L.R. Ansari,  right from the beginning.  He had examined 132 witnesses from the  prosecution and the defence had also examined 93 witnesses.   Arguments on behalf of the petitioners were completed on 14.7.2004  and the arguments on behalf of the defence started on 19.7.2004 and  as the case was practically over, it was decided to avail Shri Ansari’s  service in other Animal Husbandary cases.  It is also stated that if  found necessary, Mr. Ansari would be called to give any reply at the  end of the case.  As regards Shri Oma Shankar Sharma, it is  submitted that he had started his practice as an Advocate on  23.2.1968 and he was appointed as a Prosecutor in 2.1.1973 in Delhi  and conducted several cases before criminal courts in New Delhi.  He  was promoted as Senior-cum-Additional Public Prosecutor on  16.10.1992 and conducted several important cases including TADA  cases.  He was appointed as a Legal Adviser to the Commissioner of  Police, Delhi and continued upto 31.8.2003.

       From the averments made in the counter-affidavit, it is clear  that the earlier prosecutor Shri Ansari had completed the cases and  examined all the witnesses for the prosecution as well as for the  defence and he had also submitted his entire arguments to the  Special Judge.  Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the  prosecutor was purposely changed to give benefit to respondent nos.  4 and 5 is not correct.  There is no allegation to prove that respondent  nos. 4 and 5 had in any way interfered with the appointment of the  Public Prosecutor.  The petitioners could not produce any documents  to show that the allegations made in the original petitions were true.   

       The learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 submitted  that the original petition is a politically motivated move to malign  respondent nos. 4 and 5 and this sort of public interest litigation  should not be entertained by the Court and placed reliance on the  series of decisions passed by this Court.  It may be noticed that the  case nos. 5/98 has been filed against the respondent nos. 4 and 5  alleging that they had amassed wealth disproportionate to their  known sources of income while holding the post of Chief Minister of  the State of Bihar.  Both the petitioners are not in any way connected  with this case.  They are not de-facto complainant in this case.  It is  for the prosecution to prove its case and the respondent nos. 4 and 5  to deny that the  allegations are not true and they did not have the  disproportionate income as alleged by the prosecution.  It is a  criminal litigation exclusively between respondent nos. 4 and 5 and  the State.  It is also important to note that in a case of this nature,  nobody else has got any right to interfere especially by way of public  interest litigation or else such public interest litigation would only  hamper the course of justice and may cause  prejudice to the  accused by denying a fair trial.  In this case, as early as 2004, 132  witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and 93  witnesses were examined on the defence side.  Arguments of the  prosecution were over as early as in 14.7.2004 and the defence  arguments continued upto 19.7.2004.  Because of the present public  interest litigation, the trial could not be conducted.  It is equally  important to note that though the  petitioners have alleged series of  irregularities,  but they are not supported by basic facts having solid  foundation.

       This Court in Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chaudhary and Others  1992 (4) SCC 305 held that in a criminal case, a person who has no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

interest shall not invoke the jurisdiction of the Court by intervening in  the proceedings and a person acting bona fide and having sufficient  interest in the proceeding alone has locus standi to file a public  interest litigation and a person for personal gain or private profit or  political motive, or any oblique consideration has no such right  to file  public interest litigation.

       The respondent nos. 4 and 5 relied on Ashok Kumar Pandey  Vs. State of W.B. 2004 (3) SCC 349.  That is a case where petition  was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution purportedly in public  interest but the prayer was to the effect that the death sentence  imposed on one ’D’ by the Sessions Court, affirmed by the Calcutta  High Court and the Supreme Court, needed to be converted to a life  sentence because there had been no execution of the death  sentence for a long time.  Therein, this Court said that a person  acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding alone  can initiate public interest litigation and that the court must not allow  its process to be abused for oblique considerations.

       In Union of India and Others Vs. Sushil Kumar Modi and  Others 1998(8) SCC 661, a three Judge bench of this Court held that  once a charge-sheet is filed in the competent court after completion  of the investigation, the process of monitoring by the monitoring Court  for the purpose of making the CBI and other investigative agencies  concerned perform their function of investigating into the offences  concerned comes to an end; and thereafter it is only the court in  which the charge-sheet is filed which is to deal with all matters  relating to the trial of the accused, including matters falling within the  scope of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

       In the instant case, the petitioners have approached this case  by filing this public interest litigation under Article 32 of the  Constitution at the time when the recording of the prosecution  evidence was almost over and the trial of the case  reached a final  stage.  If at all, the petitioners had any grievance regarding the  removal of the public prosecutor, they should have submitted their  grievance before the Special Judge or before the High Court.  It is  already noticed that the petitioners had no direct connection with this  case.  They were absolutely strangers as regards the criminal cases  against respondent nos. 4 and 5 which was pending before the  Special Judge.  This unnecessary interference in the criminal case  may cause, sometimes, damage  to the prosecution case and at  times may cause serious prejudice to the accused also.  In any view  of the matter, this sort of interference in the criminal prosecution  would only deny a fair trial to the accused.

       The petitioners in the writ petitions have prayed to re-engage  the same prosecutor who was handling the case in the Trial Court  from the very beginning of the trial.   The earlier prosecutor had  already  been deployed to conduct some other case and we do not  think that there is any necessity to give any direction to the CBI.   However, the CBI would be at liberty to make use of the services of  the earlier Prosecutor Shri Ansari.  The second prayer of the  petitioners that the present Special Judge is to be replaced by  another Judicial Officer also cannot be granted as the appointment of  the Judge has been validly made by the High Court.  In the petition,  there was no allegation against the present Judicial Officer warranting  his removal from the post.  

       The petitioners prayed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the  respondent nos. 1 to 3 to file appeal against the orders passed by the  ITAT.  The petitioners have not made out any case for issuing any  such Writ of Mandamus.  The respondent nos. 1 to 3, after following  the due procedure,  have decided not to file an appeal against the  order passed by ITAT and we do not find any reason to give any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

direction to file appeal.

       The last prayer of the petitioners is that the bail granted to  respondent nos. 4 and 5 is liable to be set aside.  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.  The petitioners have also no case that they are  likely to flee  from justice. The petitioners have not made out any case for  cancellation of their bail.   

       The prayers sought for in the Writ Petitions cannot be allowed  and the Writ Petitions being without any merits are liable to be and  dismissed accordingly.   All interim orders passed in the Writ Petitions  are vacated.