The Supreme Court today set aside a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court which had laid down that former Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav cannot be tried separately for various offences relating to Fodder scam..The judgment was pronounced by a Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy..The Supreme Court effectively directed that Lalu Prasad Yadav can be tried for criminal conspiracy. Lalu Prasad was represented by Senior Advocates Ram Jethmalani and Surendra Singh..The Court in it’s judgment also came down upon the CBI for failing to file appeal within the prescribed time..“The CBI failed to live up to its expectations in this case. There should not have been any delay in filing appeal in this case.”.Ram Jethmalani had argued on the law of limitation to which the Supreme Court referred and said:.“Law of Limitation binds everybody equally including the Government and defense by the Government of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology cannot be accepted in view of the modern technology being used and available; more so in the light of the aforesaid decisions. Delay in moving files from one department to another is not sufficient explanation for condoning abnormal delay. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government department.“.However, after hearing Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar’s arguments the Supreme Court condoned the delay after making the following observation regarding the functioning of CBI:.“In this case, we are surprised at the conduct of the CBI in such important matters how such delay could take place. The CBI ought to have been careful in filing the Special Leave Petitions within limitation considering the factual matrix of the case. The criticism made by the senior counsel for respondent is not wholly unjustified. CBI ought to be guided by its Manual. It is expected of it to be more vigilant. .It has failed to live up to its reputation. In the instant case, lethargy on its part is intolerable. If CBI fails to act timely, peoples’ faith will be shaken in its effectiveness. .Let the Director of CBI look into the matter and saddle the responsibility on a concerned person. In important cases Director, CBI should devise methodology which should not be cumbersome as reflected in these cases, otherwise in future, Director, CBI cannot escape the responsibility for delay in such cases to be termed as deliberate one, which is intolerable. Being the head of the institution it was the responsibility of the Director, CBI to ensure that appeals were filed within limitation. There should not have been delay in filing special leave petitions at all.“.Most interestingly, the Court also took objection to the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court stating that it did not follow the law laid down in earlier cases and such “inconsistent decisions should be avoided”..The Court had now asked the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months.