A Chandigarh court has acquitted former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Nirmal Yadav, ruling that the CBI fabricated evidence to falsely implicate her in a 2008 corruption case.
NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling, a Chandigarh court has acquitted former Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice Nirmal Yadav in a corruption case, concluding that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) fabricated evidence to falsely implicate her.
Special Judge (CBI) Alka Malik, in her judgment delivered on March 29, strongly criticized the investigative agency for relying on untrustworthy evidence and misleading testimonies.
CBI’s Fabrication of Evidence
The court observed that the CBI had initially filed a closure report in the case, but later introduced new evidence that was found to be unreliable. The judgment noted that the agency had utilized the testimony of a highly aggrieved individual, Additional District Judge Raj Kumar Jain, who had previously lost a legal case adjudicated by Justice Yadav. The court remarked that Jain’s testimony was filled with assumptions, falsehoods, and significant contradictions.
“It would have been highly appreciable on the part of a premier investigating agency of the stature of the Central Bureau of Investigation to stick to its very first stance of filing the closure report… rather than fabricating a highly unworthy of trust evidence in the form of Sh. R.K. Jain (PW26), whose testimony has been proved to be based upon all improvements, assumptions, presumptions, hypothesis and all falsehood,”
the judgment stated.
The Origins of the Case
The case dates back to August 2008 when a bag containing Rs. 15 lakh was mistakenly delivered to the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, another sitting judge of the High Court. The delivery was made by a clerk of former Haryana Additional Advocate General Sanjeev Bansal.
Upon discovering the misdelivery, Justice Kaur’s staff reported the matter to the Chandigarh Police, which registered an FIR. The case was later transferred to the CBI.
The prosecution alleged that the sum was originally intended for Justice Nirmal Yadav as a bribe for a favorable judgment in a property dispute case. However, due to confusion in the names of the two judges, the money was wrongly delivered to Justice Kaur’s residence. The CBI initially closed the case, but later reopened it and filed a chargesheet against Justice Yadav in 2011.
Court’s Dismissal of Key Witness’s Testimony
The court severely criticized the credibility of prosecution witness Jain, labeling him as
“absolutely unworthy of trust”
During his examination, Jain admitted that his supplementary statement made in 2010 contained key details that he had omitted in his initial statement in 2008. This inconsistency led the court to reject his claims outright.
The court further noted that Jain had accused Justice Yadav of exerting pressure on him, but failed to provide any concrete evidence to substantiate this claim.
“No action of any type was ever initiated by any Agency of the High Court against him during the intervening period. He was not transferred out midterm during that period. In fact, he could not state even one fact which could be termed as ‘pressure’ exerted on him by A-5 during that period,”
the court observed.
ALSO READ: Punjab and Haryana High Court Recommends 15 Judges Amid Staggering Backlog
Doubts Over CBI’s Case
Another crucial observation made by the court was the improbability of a sitting High Court judge receiving illegal gratification for a case decided five months prior to the alleged financial transaction.
“It will be absolutely immature and imprudent on the part of even a layman to accept the contention that a sitting Judge of the High Court will receive financial illegal gratification/undue advantage in a matter which was decided five months prior to the alleged financial transaction… much less a legal mind trained to separate the grain from the chaff,”
the court remarked.
The court also pointed out that the CBI, during its reinvestigation, did not present any new evidence apart from the altered statement of Jain. Many witnesses turned hostile, refusing to support the prosecution’s case. The court ruled that most of the evidence was based on hypothetical assumptions and lacked credibility.
Acquittal of All Accused
Prosecution Claims and Key Allegations
According to the prosecution, the sequence of events was as follows:
- A-2 gave Rs.15 lakh to A-1 in Delhi.
- A-1 was to deliver this money to A-5 in Chandigarh.
- Due to an error, the money reached Justice Nirmaljit Kaur’s house instead.
- To cover this mistake, the accused allegedly created a false property deal story.
The CBI accused the defendants of fabricating a sale agreement and attempting to mislead the police by creating a narrative involving property commission.
The CBI stated:
“A-1 (since deceased) gave statement Ex.PW6/1 in his own handwriting to the police.”
They also claimed:
“Affidavit seized from the pen drive of A-1 (since deceased) also go to show that they were conspiring and were in a bid to make up a story so as to avoid the goof up in the matter.”
It was argued that the money trail showed that:
“A-5 obtained air tickets from A-1 (since deceased) and A-2.”
Further, the prosecution believed:
“This ill gotten money of Rs.15.00 lacs was utilized by A-5 in purchasing land by virtue of two sale deeds Ex.PW9/2 and Ex.PW9/3, which were highly undervalued.”
Defence Arguments
The defence lawyers strongly denied all charges and pointed out that the prosecution’s case lacked reliable evidence. They argued:
“There is no evidence on record to prove that A-5 had actually received a sum of Rs.15.00 lacs in cash from A-2 on August 14, 2008 and the charge to that effect must fail.”
It was also highlighted that:
“Constable Udayvir (PW39), the then PSO of A-5 has not supported the prosecution version and has been declared hostile.”
And:
“PW58 most important witness, who is wife of A-1 (since deceased-accused), has not supported this prosecution version.”
Regarding the use of air tickets and mobile phones as circumstantial evidence, the court observed:
“There is absolutely no evidence that A-5 had travelled through the concerned flight.”
And further clarified:
“No such mobile phone was recovered by CBI and the only witness cited by CBI in this regard… has not stated anything about mobile number used by A-5.”
The defence also pointed out:
“More than fifteen witnesses have turned hostile, whereas several other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.”
Court’s Judgment and Reasoning
After thoroughly examining the evidence and arguments, the court stated:
“The prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt to the accused persons.”
In reference to the prosecution’s main witness, the court said:
“This court has no hesitation in rejecting the testimony of this highly interested and motivated witness.”
The court also raised serious concerns about the reliability of the evidence:
“A statement made to police can only be used to the limited extent provided under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that too only against the person making the statement.”
In concluding remarks, the judgment emphasized:
“It will be absolutely immature and imprudent on the part of even a layman to accept the contention that a sitting Judge of the High Court will receive financial illegal gratification… five months prior to the alleged financial transaction.”
Ultimately, the court ruled:
“Accused namely Ravinder Bhasin (A-2), Rajeev Gupta (A-3), Nirmal Singh (A-4) and Ms. Nirmal Yadav (A-5), are hereby acquitted of the charges framed against them.”
This landmark ruling comes after almost 17 years of investigation and trial. The decision has drawn attention to the importance of robust evidence, especially when serious allegations are made against public servants. The judgment clearly indicates that mere assumptions or hostile witness statements cannot replace solid legal proof.
The bail bonds were discharged and the court directed that:
“The case property shall be dealt with as per rules on expiry of the limitation period of appeal or revision.”
This verdict has closed a controversial chapter in the Indian judiciary with a strong reminder:
Justice must be based on facts, not on speculation.
Legal Representation and Final Judgment
The CBI was represented by Public Prosecutor Narender Singh, while Senior Advocate S.K. Garg Narwana and Advocate V.G. Narwana defended Justice Nirmal Yadav. Advocates A.S. Chahal, B.S. Riar, and Hitesh Puri represented other accused persons.
The ruling has raised serious concerns about the CBI’s handling of high-profile cases and the integrity of its investigative processes. The acquittal of Justice Yadav has once again brought into focus the importance of ensuring that judicial officers are not subjected to wrongful persecution based on fabricated evidence.
ALSO READ: Punjab and Haryana High Court Recommends 15 Judges Amid Staggering Backlog
READ JUDGEMENT:
READ MORE REPORTS PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
