IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS GEETANJALI GOEL,

SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), (CBI)-24, ROUSE AVENUE COURT

COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CBI No. 55/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI LALU PRASAD YADAV …APPLICANT
IN
Central Bureau of Investigation …
PROSECUTION
Versus
Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav & Ors. …Accused Persons
RC No. 220 2017 E0013
Sections: 120-B IPC & S.420 IPC &
S. 13(2) r/w S. 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988
NDOH: 14.12.2022

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 91 OF THE CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED NO.
1 SHRI LALU PRASAD YADAV FOR SUMMONING OF
DOCUMENTS WHICH IS NECESSARY AT THE TIME OF
FRAMING OF CHARGES.

1. That the present matter is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble

Court and is listed on 14.12.2022 for argument on charge.

2. That it is submitted that the Applicant/ Accused No. 1 has been

arraigned as Accused No. 1 in the charge sheet filed by the
Investigating Agency in the FIR No. RC No. 220 2017 E0013
dated 05.07.2017 under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the
 IPC, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act, 1988.

3. That it is essential to mention here that Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav,

applicant herein, had served as Railway Minister of India from year
2004 to 2009.

4. That it is pertinent to mention here that CBI in the year 2009 has
sought original tender documents files of BNR Hotels at Ranchi
and Puri from IRCTC/ Ministry of railways, and the same was
handed over to CBI on 04.11.2009 File No.
2006/IRCTC/RYN/GEN.

5. That in the year 2012, CBI after investigating the case qua tender
document files of BNR Hotels at Ranchi and Puri were returned on
25.04.2012 vide letter no. 2012/IRCTC/Vig/Acknowledgement file
to Ministry of Railways/IRCTC.

6. That it is submitted that in the year _____ CBI had received a

complaint from Chief vigilance Officer, Ministry of Railway to
investigate the same case which was closed by the CBI.

7. It is submitted that the complaint against Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav

was closed due to the findings that there was no proximity of any
connection between licensing of Budget hotel at Ranchi and Puri to
M/s Sujata Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and sale of agriculture properties by
Harsh Kochar to M/s Delight Marketing Co.. Further, it was found
out there was no irregularities in awarding of the contract.
8. That it is submitted that the investigator is not fair and the material
of sterling quality though seized during investigation and available
with him is deliberately left out from the charge-sheet.

9. That it submitted that ordinarily the court has to proceed on the

basis of material produced with the charge-sheet for dealing with
the issue of charge but if the court is satisfied that there is material
of sterling quality which has been withheld by the
investigator/prosecutor, the court is not debarred from summoning
or relying upon the same even if such document is not a part of the
charge sheet.

10. That reliance has been placed in the case of Dinesh Puri vs. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Crl. Rev. P. 351/2016 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that an application under Section 91
Cr.P.C. is filed considering the necessity and desirability of the
documents and the stage of trial which could also include
confronting the witnesses with their earlier statement, the Court
will allow the same by directing production of the said documents
to the petitioner. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as follows:

‘’14. The issue whether a document of impeccable character

can be produced by the accused at the stage of framing of
charge was later considered by the Supreme Court in the
decision reported as MANU/SC/8100/2008 : (2008) 14 SCC
1 Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors. wherein
the Court held that while it is true that ordinarily defence
material cannot be looked into by the Court while framing of
 the charge in view of Debendra Nath Padhi's case, there
may be some very rare and exceptional cases where some
defence material when shown to the trial court would
convincingly demonstrate that the prosecution version was
totally absurd or preposterous, and in such very rare cases
the defence material can be looked into by the court at the
time of framing of the charges or taking cognizance. It was
held that it cannot be said to be an absolute proposition that
under no circumstances can the court look into the material
produced by the defence at the stage of framing of the
charge, though this should be done in very rare cases i.e.
where the defence produces some material which
convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution case
is totally absurd or totally concocted.’’

11. That reliance has been further placed in the case of Shiv Narain
Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, W.P. (Crl) 781/2013
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The relevant paragraph
is reproduced as follows:

“41. The trial Court while framing the charges has

categorically observed that it is wellsettled that documents
relied upon by the accused persons are not to be considered
at the stage of framing of charges and they are required to
be produced in defence. But this Court is not handicapped,
having regard to the observations made by the Apex Court
in the recent decision in Rajiv Thapar (Supra) wherein it has
been categorically held that in the facts and circumstances
 of a given case and more particularly to prevent the abuse of
process of the Court and to secure ends of justice and in
proceedings under Section 482, the High Court can look
into such documents.”

12. That reliance has been further placed in the case of Kavita Vs.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors, Crl. Rev. P. 574/2016
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The relevant paragraph
is reproduced as follows:

“22. Thus in our opinion, while it is true that ordinarily

defence material cannot be looked into by the court while
framing of the charge in view of D.N. Padhi
case[MANU/SC/1010/2004 : (2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC
(Cri) 415], there may be some very rare and exceptional
cases where some defence material when shown to the trial
court would convincingly demonstrate that the prosecution
version is totally absurd or preposterous, and in such very
rare cases the defence material can be looked into by the
court at the time of framing of the charges or taking
cognizance. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said as
an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the
court look into the material produced by the defence at the
time of framing of the charges, though this should be done in
very rare cases i.e. where the defence produces some
material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole
prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted."
13. That reliance has been further placed in the case of Nitya
Dharmananda Alias K. Lenin and Another vs. Gopal Sheelum
Reddy and Another, (2018) 2 SCC 93 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as
follows:

"8. Thus, it is clear that while ordinarily the Court has to

proceed on the basis of material produces with the charge
sheet for dealing with the issue of charge but if the Court is
satisfied that there is material of sterling quality which has
been withheld by the investigator/prosecutor, the Court is
not debarred from summoning or relying upon the same
even if such document is not a part of the charge sheet. It
does not mean that the defence has a right to invoke Section
91 Code of Criminal Procedure de hors the satisfaction of
the Court, at the stage of charge."

14. That the present application is being filed by the Accused no. 1,
wherein the Accused no. 1 prays before this Hon’ble court that the
below mentioned documents be summoned which are necessary at
the time of framing of charges. The details of the documents
required are mentioned below.

a) Letter dated 30.12.2009 issued by D.S. Shkula to Vigilance

Railway Board: File Pertaining to BNR Hotel Puri and
Ranchi at Page Nos. 674 of M.R. NO: 813/2017.

b) Letter dated 19.11.2010 issued by Director Vigilance

Railway Board to CBI (Letter No: 67/ACU-V/CBI, New
 Delhi dated 14.10.2009) Page Nos: 501-502 of M.R. NO:
813/2017.

c) Clarification with respect to AD (5) to CBI at PAGE NOS:

113-116 of M.R. NO: 813/2017 which shows that BNR
Hotel Puri were handed over to successful bidder after due
process of tendering and BNR Hotel Ranchi were making
losses of 14 Lakh.

d) Letter dated 21.05.2012 reference No:

(2009/V-4/RB/RRB/17-Pt) issued by Railway Board to CBI
at Page Nos. 511 of M.R. NO: 813/2017.

e) Letter dated 30.05.2012 issued by Superintendent of Police

to Dy. Director Vigilance with reference CO/2009/03/ACU-
V) Page No: 103 Kindly refer to the Letter No:
(2009/V-4/RB/RRB/17-Pt). The CBI has looked into the
matter relation to award of contract of BNR Hotel Puri and
has not found anything irregularities in award of contract.
You are requested to depute an official to collect the file
relating to award of BNR Hotel Puri and Ranchi.

f) Letter dated 08.06.2012 deputed Anil Singh, IO Railway

Board to collect the file on 08.06.2012. PAGE NOS: 515

g) On 14.06.2012, all files were handed over to Deputy

Director Vigilance: PAGE NOS: 516
 i. File No: IRCTC/RYN/GEN; Containing Note Sheet at
Page No: 1 to 4

ii. File No: 2006/IRCTC/T&M/ BNR Hotel Puri-1/2

iii. File No: 2006/IRCTC/T&M/ BNR Hotel Puri-2/2

iv. Original Tender File NO: BNR-Puri-1

v. Original Tender Document-1/2 BNR Ranchi-1

vi. Original Tender Document-2/2 BNR- Rachi-ll

vii. File No: 2007/IRCTC/T&M/ BNR Hotel Ranchi-1/2

viii. File No: 2007/IRCTC/T&M/ BNR Hotel Ranchi-2/2

h) Letter dated: 23.04.2013 issued by the Director Vigilance to

CBI with reference letter No: 2009/V-4/RB/RRB/17-Pt
PAGE NOS: 521

i) Letter dated: 23.10.2009 issued by the Deputy Director to

Superintendent of Police, CBl; PAGE NO: 525, 606-609 for
allegation. some dates 14.05.209 and 26.05.2009. They are
relied on scrutiny by Railway Board Vigilance.

j) The preliminary scrutiny of the tender documents shows that

the license in the respect of BNR Hotel, Ranchi was awarded
to M/s Sujata Hotel Pvt. Ltd after following due tender
process and no irregularities in awarding of the contract has
not caused only loss to the Railways.
k) The preliminary scrutiny of the tender proceedings shows
that the tender have finalised after following due tender
process and no irregularities is no need the award of the
license to M/s Sujata Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Clause No: 3.3 PAGE
NOoS: 611-613 issued by Adv. Vigilance, Railway Board to
PMO dated 23.12.2008

l) Letter dated 24.12.2008 & Letter dated: 04.11.2008 with

respect to PMO 10 No: 1140170/PMO 2008: "No evidence
has been found to substantiate to allegation with respect of
representation, issued by the Chairman, Railway Board to
PM0. Letter Dated 04.11.2008: PAGE No: 622-624

m) Page Nos: 638 to 646 issued by Chief Vigilance officer to

CBI: Para "To take over the investigation”

n) Brief Notes on compliant received from Chief Vigilance

Officer (CVO), Ministry of Railways at PAGE NOS: 176-
184

o) Review notes in the matter relating to complaint against Lalu

Prasad Yadav: No proximity of any connection between
licensing of these Hotels to M/s Sujata Hotel Pvt. Ltd and
sale of Agriculture properties by Sh. Harsh Kochar to M/s
Delight Marketing Co. has been detected during verification.
No linkage could be established for sale of Agriculture land
by Sh. Harsh Kochar to M/s Delight Marketing Co. to that of
 award of contract for leasing of two i.e. BNR Hotel Ranchi
and Puri.

15. That it is important to mention here that all the aforesaid

documents as mentioned above are in the custody of the CBI but
these documents are not part of the report filed by the CBI u/s 173
Cr.P.C.

16. That the documents as mentioned above are necessary in the

interest of justice of the Applicant in the present case instituted by
the CBI. The documents sought to be summoned are essential and
necessary at the time of framing of charge by this Hon’ble court.

17. That this application has been filed in the most bona fide manner,
as advised under law and made in the interest of justice.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may be pleased to:

i. Allow the present application and to direct the CBI to produce

the aforementioned documents mentioned in this present
application; and/ or;

ii. Pass any further order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
 Filed by:

VARUN JAIN
Counsel for the Applicant/ Accused No. 1
H-11, LGF, Lajpat Nagar – III,
New Delhi – 110024; +91- 9999020047

Filed on: 14.12.2022

New Delhi
 IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS GEETANJALI GOEL,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), (CBI)-24, ROUSE AVENUE COURT
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CBI No. 55/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI LALU PRASAD YADAV …APPLICANT
IN
Central Bureau of Investigation …PROSECUTION
Versus
Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav & Ors. …Accused Persons

INDEX
S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 91 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
1973 ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED NO. 1 SHRI
LALU PRASAD YADAV FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS WHICH IS NECESSARY
FOR FAIR TRIAL

Filed by:

VARUN JAIN
Counsel for the Applicant/ Accused No. 1
H-11, LGF, Lajpat Nagar – III,
New Delhi – 110024; +91- 9999020047

Filed on: 14.12.2022

New Delhi