Friday, December 2 2005 17:38 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today (Dec 2,2005) sought response from CBI and Bihar Government on a petition filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad and his wife Rabri Devi, challenging the grant of sanction to prosecute them during the brief tenure of Nitish Kumar as Chief Minister of State in disproportionate assets case, an off-shoot of multi-crore fodder scam.

A Bench comprising Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P P Naolekar issued notices to the agency and State Government on their plea questioning the sanction to prosecute them in the case given by the then Bihar Governor V C Pande on March 10, 2000.

The couple have challenged the verdict of the three Judge Bench of the Patna High Court which, on June 21 last, had unanimously dismissed their plea against the sanction.

The Bench has sought reply of CBI and Bihar Government within two weeks and posted the matter for further hearing in second week of January 2006.

Senior advocate Fali S Nariman, appearing for Prasad and Rabri, contended that the sanction was not properly obtained as the agency directly approached the Governor without gettingthe approval of Council of Ministers.

"Can CBI bypass Council of Ministers and approach the Governor," he submitted and added that the sanction was taken when Kumar was the Chief Minister for a week from March 3, 2000 onwards.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for intervener Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'Lalan', said sanction was taken from a competent authority.

The charge sheet filed in the case in April 2000 alleged that Prasad had accumulated disproportionate assets during the period 1990 to 1997 when he was Chief Minister.

Nariman submitted that when the alleged offence was registered against Prasad under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it was incumbent upon the CBI to obtain the permission of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly as he was the sitting member during the period.

He said sanction of Governor was not appropriate as Prasad had demitted the office as Chief Minister and was MP when the cognisance of offence was taken.

The FIR in the case had said that Prasad as Chief Minister of State had acquired, by corrupt means, assets, both movable and immovable, in his names and in the names of other members of his family.