Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 07th July, 2026
19196/2026 SHRI LALU PRASAD YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Navin Kumar, Mr. Sumit Singh, Mr. Aekta Vats, Ms. Janvi Narang, Mr. Sagar Priyadarshi, Ms. Geetanjali, Mr. Ankur Kumar, Advocates.
Through: Mr. D P Singh, ASG and SPP with Mr. Manu Mishra, Ms. Garima, Mr. Imran Khera, Ms. Shreya Dutt, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
1. The point raised in the present petition is a very short one.
2. PW-18 Ashok Kumar entered into witness box on 14.06.2026 and after his examination-in-chief was over, he was cross-examined by learned counsel representing eight accused persons i.e. A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-18.
3. During cross-examination, a question was put to the abovesaid witness which was disallowed by the learned Trial Court while observing as under:- “At this stage, the question asked by the Id. counsel to the witness regarding the possibility of such files being provided upon an RTI application moved by a related party is considered speculative and beyond the purview of the deposition or knowledge of the witness. More so, when the replies under the RTI are provided by designated officials of Government Departments. The question is therefore disallowed. CRL.M.C. 4610/2026 2 At this stage, the Id. counsel for the accused has sought liberty to project the photocopy of a purported reply dated 11.09.2018 from Sh. Harish Chander, Joint Director, Vigilance (R&SC) and CPIO, Railway Board to Mr. Pradeep Kumar Goel. Since the said letter bears the signatures of a apparently designated officer under the RTI viz the CPIO namely Sh. Harish Chander, the signature and the contents of the said reply cannot be projected to the present witness who is recorded as not being competent to answer any query regarding the same.”
4. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that since the abovesaid witness had claimed that the file in question was a confidential one and could not have been taken out of the Ministry, it wanted to confront him with a reply which had been given in response to a query raised under Right to Information Act, 2005.
5. Fact, however, remains that the abovesaid RTI reply dated 11.09.2018 has been, allegedly, signed by one Mr. Harish Chander, Jt. Director Vigilance(R&SC) and CPIO, Railway Board. The question about said document/reply is to a third person and not to the maker. As already noticed above, the abovesaid document was confronted with PW-18 Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav.
6. Moreover, the question seems hypothetical and speculative. If so advised, such reply can always be proved by concerned accused in defence evidence.
7. Be that as it may, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the abovesaid order which is well-reasoned.
8. The petition stands dismissed in limine.
JUDGE JULY 7, 2026/sw/sy