The Rouse Avenue court on Monday adjourned the order for framing of charges in the employment corruption case. The court will issue an order on December 4.
The CBI has filed a chargesheet against former Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, Misa Bharti, Tejashwi Yadav, Hema Yadav, Tej Pratap Yadav and other accused persons. Special Judge Vishal Gogne stayed the order and fixed the matter for December 4.
On September 11, the Rouse Avenue court reserved its decision on the plot charges. This case is against former railway minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and others.
CBI has accused former Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi and others in this case. Allegedly, instead of land, she got a job on the railway.
Special public prosecutor (SPP) DP Singh, on behalf of the CBI, said there was enough material to charge the accused persons.
Former railway minister Lalu Prasad Yadav’s senior counsel, Maninder Singh, during the arguments argued that the employment case ground is politically motivated. There is no evidence to suggest that work was given to candidates in exchange for land. There are sale deeds which show that the lands were purchased for money.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh said there was no violation of any rule regarding appointment and no work was given for the land.
It was also argued that former Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav did not recommend any candidate. No CEO has stated that he ever met Lalu Prasad Yadav.
The senior counsel further argued that no case of corruption was established as he had not given any recommendations to any candidate. Simply calling it a royal pin is not enough. There is no evidence against him.
It was also argued that there was no evidence to show that any land was taken for free. The land was purchased.
Earlier during the arguments on behalf of Rabri Devi it was submitted that Rabri Devi had bought the land and paid money for it. Buying land for money is not a crime. No favor was done to any accused candidate. These transactions are not linked.
The senior advocate argued that the CBI had to prove the existence of corruption. The land being sold was bought for consideration.
He further stated that the complainants followed all due process. Where is the corrupt action? These acts are independent. None of the accused’s actions are connected, he added.
