The CBI has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the trial court’s acquittal of former judge Justice Nirmal Yadav in a 2008 corruption case. The agency argues the verdict ignored key evidence and witness testimonies.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has challenged in the Punjab and Haryana High Court the trial court’s order that had acquitted Justice Nirmal Yadav, a former judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a long-running corruption case.
The case was originally registered by the agency back in 2008 against her and several others.
On Monday, a Division Bench comprising Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul and Justice HS Grewal issued notice to Justice Yadav and three other respondents.
The Bench has now listed the CBI’s appeal for hearing on December 15. Special Public Prosecutor Akashdeep Singh represented the CBI before the court.
Earlier this year, in March, a Chandigarh trial court had given a clean chit to Justice Yadav. That court had held that the CBI had fabricated evidence against her in order to frame her in the corruption case.
The case traces back to August 2008 when a bag carrying Rs 15 lakh was mistakenly delivered to the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, another judge of the High Court. It was Justice Kaur’s peon who reported the matter to the Chandigarh Police, which promptly registered a First Information Report (FIR).
The investigation was later handed over to the CBI. Initially, the CBI filed a closure report, but the same was rejected. Eventually, the agency went ahead and filed a charge sheet in 2011 against Justice Yadav and other accused.
According to the prosecution, the money had been delivered by a clerk of former Haryana Additional Advocate General Sanjeev Bansal. The allegation was that the Rs 15 lakh was meant for Justice Nirmal Yadav but, due to the similarity in the names of the two judges, the bag reached the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur by mistake.
The money was claimed to be gratification for a judgment Justice Yadav had delivered in a property dispute. In that matter, Raj Kumar Jain, also known as Raj Kumar Mittal, who was then an Additional District Judge, was a respondent, and the ruling had gone against him.
While delivering judgment on March 29, Special Judge (CBI) Alka Malik came down heavily on the CBI’s approach. She said:
“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 in the matter in the court of competent jurisdiction, 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.”
In the same order, the trial court acquitted all the accused. It further described Jain’s testimony as absolutely untrustworthy.
The court rejected his claim that he had remained silent under pressure from Justice Yadav. The judgment specifically noted:
“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. Such general allegations can be made by any person at a minutes notice. The entire statement of PW26 is a clear improvement on the first statement made by him during the investigation of this case.”
The trial court went further, observing that the CBI had relied on a person who was upset with Justice Yadav because of her earlier decision against him, and “used his services to weave a case” against her.
The judgment also raised questions about the CBI’s narrative that the alleged bribe was given more than five months after the judgment had been delivered against Jain.
Now, in its appeal before the High Court, the CBI has argued that the trial court’s findings are completely flawed.
The agency has said the verdict is “perverse” because, despite noting several circumstantial links, the trial court dismissed them on what it called speculative and subjective reasoning.
The CBI further stated:
“The prosecution’s case is supported by the testimony of 78 witnesses. However, while assessing the merits of the case, the learned Trial Judge has conspicuously remained silent on the overall evidentiary landscape, confining the analysis to the testimony of only 10-12 witnesses. No reasoning or justification has been provided for disregarding the evidence of the remaining witnesses, thereby undermining a comprehensive appreciation of the case.”
With the High Court now seized of the matter, the legal battle around one of the most talked-about judicial corruption cases in the region is set to continue.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Vice Presidential Election
