Court rejects Tejashwi's plea of being minor on the date of irregularities

New Delhi: While framing charges in a corruption case connected to alleged irregularities in the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC), a Delhi court on Monday rejected the argument of RJD leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav that he was a minor on the date of purchase of land parcels and award of tenders.

Special Judge Vishal Gogne noted the argument that Tejashwi was a minor on February 5, 2005, the date of purchase of land parcels by M/s DMCPL, and on December 27, 2006, when the tenders were awarded to M/s Sujata Hotel, and so he was not within the legal capacity to be prosecuted as an adult.

The court said, "It is not the defence of Tejashwi either that he was a minor on the dates of sale of shares of M/s DMCPL to him. Hence, his age as a minor at the stage of the land sales in the year 2005 cannot be extrapolated to create any legal bar to prosecution as an adult qua the transactions relating to shares post 2010."

It said the transfer of these shares by M/s DMCPL itself was the culmination of the transaction, which began with the land parcels purchased by this company from Kochhar brothers and caused wrongful loss to the state exchequer at the stage of sale in 2005 "It is the entirety of the transactions for this land from the year 2005 to 2014, which appears gravely suspicious on account of the effect which the transactions precipitated."

"The cumulative effect of this possibly unscrupulous transfer of lands was the gaining of effective control of Rabri Devi and Tejashwi Prasad Yadav over the same when Lalu Prasad Yadav has also been shown, in a plenary perspective, to have been instrumental in influencing the quid pro quo, viz the grant of the tenders to M/s Sujata Hotel," the court said.

Judge Gogne said, "The court has reached a prima facie finding that there exists a grave suspicion in the manner in which the shares of M/s DMCPL were transferred to Rabri Devi and Tejashwi Prasad Yadav at undervalued rates."

He underlined that any private transaction reflective of a manipulated and deceptive consideration, especially where the consideration was much lower than the ordinary market norms, was a "dishonest and fraudulent exercise" because of the loss it caused to the public exchequer.