Today, On 27th March, Seventeen years after cash was discovered at a judge’s doorstep, a Chandigarh court is set to announce its verdict in the Justice Nirmal Yadav case. The Special Court of Additional Sessions Judge Alka Malik will deliver the judgment on March 29. The case dates back to a 2007 bribery scandal involving alleged corruption in the judiciary. The long-awaited verdict will determine the legal outcome of the high-profile case.
A Chandigarh court has reserved its verdict on Thursday in the case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Justice Nirmal Yadav in 2008.
The Special Court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Alka Malik, heard the final arguments from both the defense and the prosecution.
The court scheduled the decision to be announced on March 29.
The court stated in its order today,
“Arguments heard and concluded. For orders on 29.03.2025,”
The case against Justice Yadav, who was a sitting High Court judge and former judicial officer at the time, dates back to August 2008. It began when a bag containing Rs.15 lakh was mistakenly delivered to the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, another sitting High Court judge.
The incident was reported to the Chandigarh Police by Justice Kaur’s peon, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). The case was subsequently transferred to the CBI following orders from General (retd) SF Rodrigues, who was the Governor of Punjab and Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
According to the prosecution, the funds were delivered by a clerk of former Haryana Additional Advocate General Sanjeev Bansal and were intended for Justice Yadav. However, due to the similarity in the names of the two judges, the money was mistakenly sent to Justice Kaur’s residence.
In 2010, Justice Yadav was transferred to the Uttarakhand High Court, where she retired a year later. In the same year, a charge sheet was filed against her and several others. By 2014, the Special Court had framed charges against five individuals involved in the case.
One of the primary accused, Bansal, passed away in December 2016 at Max Hospital in Mohali, leading to the dismissal of the proceedings against him in January 2017.
During a video conference statement to the trial court in 2016, Justice Kaur recounted the incident from August 13, 2008, which occurred just 33 days after her appointment to the High Court.
She said,
“I vividly remember that I was munching an apple and my father was enjoying a drink, as he did every day, when my Peon Amrik walked in and said in Punjabi: ‘Madam, Delhi ton kaagaz aye nein.’ I replied, ‘Khol ke dekh.’ As he struggled to open the tape around the packet, I sensed it wasn’t papers and immediately said, ‘Jaldi Khol.’ When he finally tore it open, I saw it was currency notes. Without wasting a second, I exclaimed, ‘Pakro, kaun laike aya hain.'”
Bansal reportedly called Justice Kaur shortly afterward to clarify that the money had been mistakenly delivered to her residence and was intended for someone named Nirmal Singh. However, by that time, Justice Kaur had already informed the police.
She also spoke to the High Court Chief Justice TS Thakur, who had just taken over from Justice JS Khehar two days earlier, as well as Justice Mehtab Singh Gill, another High Court judge.
The prosecution called upon 84 witnesses, but only 69 were examined during the trial. In February of this year, the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the CBI to re-examine 12 witnesses.
The court also instructed the CBI to examine the witnesses within four weeks and emphasized that the trial court should avoid granting unnecessary adjournments. This directive was issued as the trial was nearing completion.
Subsequently, the trial court announced the closure of prosecution evidence on March 17. The recording of the accused’s statements was completed on March 26, and final arguments were presented on March 27.
Senior Advocate SK Garg Narwana and Advocate VG Narwana represented Justice Nirmal Yadav, while Advocates AS Chahal, BS Riar, and Hitesh Puri defended the other accused individuals.
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v Sanjiv Bansal & Ors