The Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed the CBI to examine six witnesses in the case against former judge Justice Nirmal Yadav, crucial for just adjudication, despite the trial nearing conclusion.
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday permitted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to examine or re-examine six witnesses before the trial court in the case against Justice Nirmal Yadav.
Justice Yadav, a former judge of the High Court, is an accused in the famous cash-at-judge’s-door case. The High Court order comes at a time when the trial has almost concluded.
“After careful consideration of the submissions and settled principles of law, this Court finds that the … witnesses are necessary for just adjudication of the case coupled with the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the accused as the defence would get opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the witnesses summoned under Section 311 CrPC,”
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said.
The Court directed the CBI to examine the witnesses within four weeks and asked the trial court to ensure no unnecessary adjournments are granted. It also emphasized that the defence must cooperate for the trial’s expeditious conclusion.
The case against Justice Yadav originated in August 2008 when a bag containing Rs 15 lakh was delivered to the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, then a sitting judge of the High Court.
The matter was reported by Justice Kaur’s peon to the Chandigarh Police. The case was later transferred to the CBI. According to the prosecution, the money, delivered by a clerk of former Haryana Additional Advocate General Sanjeev Bansal, was meant for Justice Yadav.
In 2010, Justice Yadav was transferred to Uttarakhand High Court, where she retired a year later. In 2014, a Special Court in Chandigarh framed charges against the accused. On February 14, 2024, the court deferred the proceedings, awaiting the outcome of the CBI’s petition against the rejection of its request to examine 22 more witnesses.
Setting aside the trial court’s decision, Justice Kaul stated that an application under Section 311 of CrPC for witness examination cannot be rejected merely because it may delay the trial’s conclusion.
“Each application must be examined on its own merits to determine whether the evidence sought to be introduced is essential to the just decision of the case,”
the Court added.
In this case, the Court noted that certain witnesses sought to be examined were not being introduced to cure a defect in evidence but to prove facts crucial to the prosecution’s case.
“Hence, the request for their examination cannot be rejected solely on the ground of purportedly filling lacunae,”
it further stated.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the examination of six witnesses. Regarding the remaining witnesses, the Court ruled that the CBI failed to establish their relevance or necessity.
“As regards the remaining witnesses, the prosecution has failed to establish their relevance or the necessity of their reexamination.”
Legal Representation
Special Public Prosecutor Akashdeep Singh represented the CBI.
Senior Advocate SK Garg Narwana, along with Advocate Vishal Garg Narwana and Advocates GC Shahpuri, Sangram S Saron, and Madhavrao Rajwade, represented the accused.
Case Title – Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravinder Singh @ Ravinder Singh Bhasin and others
Read the Judgement here:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES