New Delhi, Feb 11 (PTI) The CBI told the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that RJD patriarch Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi and son Tejashwi Yadav cannot evade trial in the IRCTC scam case simply because there was no sanction for their prosecution when the trial court took cognisance in the matter.

Appearing on behalf of the federal probe agency before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who was hearing the Yadav family members' petitions challenging the framing of charges against them, Additional Solicitor General D P Singh said taking sanction under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not mandatory to prosecute the petitioners.

An opinion to this effect was also given in March 2020 by then attorney general of India K K Venugopal, he told the court.

Singh added that since the matter was getting "dragged", a sanction was taken subsequently, as was permitted in law, and no prejudice was caused to the petitioners.

"Sanction is not required. But it was taken. Sanction was taken at a stage where proceedings under section 207 (of CrPC) were going on. And therefore, there was no prejudice that was caused," the senior law officer said.

"The sanction can come later. There is no difficulty; the entire proceedings remain... You don't have to go back to the stage of taking cognisance unless some prejudice is caused. None of my friends have argued or shown what the prejudice that was caused," he further submitted.

On October 13, 2025, a trial court framed charges against Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav and 11 others in the case for the alleged offences of cheating, criminal conspiracy and corruption under the Indian Penal Code and sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Lalu, Rabri Devi and Tejashwi have said that the trial court took cognisance in the absence of a sanction either under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act or under Section 197 of the CrPC.

The additional solicitor general said the issue of cognisance under section 197 of the CrPC was a matter of trial.

The trial court had also framed charges against Pradeep Kumar Goel, Rakesh Saxena, Bhupendra Kumar Agarwal, Rakesh Kumar Gogia and Vinod Kumar Asthana under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Section 13(2) deals with the punishment for criminal misconduct by a public servant, and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) with abuse of position by a public servant to obtain favours.

The court had also directed that the charge be framed under IPC section 420 (cheating) against Lalu Prasad, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi, M/s LARA Projects LLP, Vijay Kochhar, Vinay Kochhar, Sarla Gupta, and Prem Chand Gupta.

The maximum punishment under the anti-graft law is 10 years, while that for cheating is seven years. PTI ADS NSD NSD

IRCTC scam case: prosecution says later-obtained sanction preserves charges if no prejudice to accused is shown. The prosecution argued that absence of prior official sanction did not bar framing of charges because a sanction can be obtained later without causing prejudice; sanction was in fact taken during pre-trial proceedings and defendants have not shown specific prejudice, while the question whether immunity from prosecution affects cognisance is a matter for trial.