The Cash-at-Judge’s-Door case has taken a new turn as former Chandigarh IGP Rajesh Kumar admitted to a clerical error in his statement. He clarified that the mistake involved the name of a judge, raising questions about the accuracy of key records in the case. The 2008 scandal involved an alleged cash delivery meant for Justice Nirmal Yadav, sparking a legal controversy.
Nine years after former Chandigarh IGP Rajesh Kumar testified in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court regarding the 2008 cash-at-judge’s-door case, he today stated that a clerical error occurred in his statement concerning the name of a judge.
The prosecution had summoned the former IG for re-examination to clarify the ambiguity surrounding the name “Nirmaljit Yadav,” which was mentioned in his 2016 statement.
Also Read: “Judges Are Human Beings, And All Humans Are Prone To Mistakes”: Supreme Court
In that statement, Kumar said,
“He (accused Ravinder Singh) gave me a telephone call saying money was meant for another judge of the High Court with the same name, Nirmaljit Yadav.”
In court today, Kumar clarified that a clerical mistake had been made regarding the judge’s name Justice Nirmal Yadav who was incorrectly referred to as “Nirmaljit Yadav” in his statement. The former IG was questioned by CBI public prosecutor Narender Singh.
Kumar mentioned that he served as IG Chandigarh from 2002 to 2005 and had met the accused, Ravinder Singh, for official work, maintaining contact afterward. Kumar was transferred to the Delhi Police in April 2005 and later appointed as Special Commissioner of Police for the Delhi Armed Police in 2008.
On August 13, 2008, Ravinder called him, saying that the Chandigarh Police had intercepted a money exchange.
The following day, Ravinder visited Kumar’s home and indicated that the money was supposed to go to “Nirmal Singh.” Kumar advised him to confirm the details with the Chandigarh Police. Ravinder later clarified that the money was mistakenly delivered to “Justice Nirmaljit Kaur.”
After leaving Kumar’s residence, Ravinder called again to say that the money was intended for another High Court judge with a similar name “Nirmaljit Yadav” (as written in the statement).
Defense attorneys Amar Singh Chahal and Vishal Garg Narwana questioned the nine-year delay in identifying this alleged mistake, noting that the witness had signed the statement without pointing out errors at the time.
The Chandigarh Police had initiated the case on August 16, 2008, based on a complaint from Amrik Singh, a peon at Justice Nirmaljit Kaur’s residence. Initially investigated by local police, the case was transferred to the CBI on August 26, 2008, by the then Punjab Governor and UT Administrator.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
