'CBI Fabricated Evidence': Reasons Why Chandigarh Court Acquitted Justice Nirmal Yadav In Corruption Case

A Special CBI Court in Chandigarh last week acquitted Justice Nirmal Yadav in a 2008 corruption case. In a judgment spanning 89 pages, the Special Court has rejected the CBI's case that the Judge received Rs.15 lakh cash while serving at the Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2008.

Significant to note that the agency had initially filed a closure report in the matter. However, the same did not find favour with the then CBI Judge, who ordered further investigation in the matter.

Subsequently, the central probe agency presented 78 witnesses against Justice Yadav, including a litigant disgruntled by Justice Yadav's judgment against him.

Flagging the veracity of this witness, who was key to CBI's case, Special CBI Judge Alka Malik 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."

The judge proceeded to reject CBI's case and acquitted Justice Yadav and four other accused.

Prosecution's Case In Brief

In 2008, a peon of then sitting judge of Punjab & Haryana Court Justice Nirmaljit Kaur filed a complaint that a bag of Rs.15 lakh cash was delivered at her Court by advocate Sanjiv Bansal's clerk Parkash Ram. The clerk was apprehended and confessed before the Police that the bag was meant to be delivered to Justice Nirmal Yadav's residence on behalf of former Assistant AG advocate Sanjiv Bansal.

The case was then transferred to CBI and Justice Yadav and four others (one passed away during proceeding) were booked under 11, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section120-B read with 192, 196, 199 and 200 of IPC for an attempt for giving and receiving bribe allegedly in order to get a favourable order from the judge.

The CBI concluded that Justice Yadav in the capacity of a sitting Judge obtained an amount of Rs.15 lacs and other valuable things without consideration from accused Ravinder Singh and obtained air ticket from accused advocate Sanjiv Bansal, who was not only an Advocate appearing before her, but was also directly interested in property, the subject matter of an appeal pending before her.

The main question before the Court was whether Justice Nirmal Yadav was guilty of receiving bribes from co-accused Ravinder Bhasin, advocate Sanjiv Bansal and one Rajiv Gupta.

Testimony Of Prosecution Witness Unworthy 

The Court rejected the testimony of the prosecution's main witness, RK Jain, who was serving as an Additional District Judge in Haryana. Relevant to note that a property dispute involving Jain was decided by Justice Yadav unfavourably. Jain claimed that the verdict was influenced because she accepted bribe of ₹15 lakh.

Perusing his statement Judge Alka Malik said, "he is a witness who is absolutely unworthy of trust. The witness has very specifically mentioned during the course of his examination that he had made a statement before CBI probably in the month of September, 2008 wherein he had omitted all the relevant facts, which he had stated before the Investigating Officer during his supplementary statement made by him in the year 2010."

The Court further rejected the contention that Jain kept mum under pressure from Justice Yadav and said that it fails to inspire confident since "he failed to elaborate upon the type of pressure which was brought upon him. 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 mid- term during that period."

CBI Picked Up Person Who Was Highly Aggrieved By Decision Passed By Justice Yadav

The Special Court opined that,

"the CBI picked up a person who was highly aggrieved by a court decision made against his interest by A-5 and used his services to weave a case against A-5 (Justice Yadav). After all, who will buy the story of the CBI that a sum of Rs.15.00 lacs was paid as illegal gratification to a Judge for a decision pronounced by her more than five months ago and that too on the basis of the statement by a very interested witness, who had made no such charge during the recording of his first statement by the CBI, but who created the charge during the supplementary statement recorded after two years."

Absolutely 'Immature & Imprudent' On Part Of Even Layman To Accept Sitting High Court Judge Will Receive Financial Illegal Gratification For Decision Made Five Months Ago

The Court highlighted that "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. It added that a legal mind, which has been trained to separate the grain from the chaff and fish out the truth in the matter, cannot believe such a case.

Chain Of Circumstantial Evidence Missing

Judge Malik opined that the chain of circumstantial evidence which the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt is "missing".

"Incidentally, there is not even a grain of evidence available on record to connect these various dots and establish a foolproof case against the accused. These loose ends have remained loose in this case and they, thus, tend to prove absolutely nothing," the Court said.

The Court noted that eighteen prosecution witnesses turned hostile and said, "the CBI has made a vein attempt to forward the testimonies of (six witnesses) as extra judicial confession, which is in fact nothing more than hear-say evidence shorn of any evidentiary value. The evidence of these witnesses is neither legal nor one of any evidentiary value in this case."

CBI Case Was Hypothetical And Assumptions 

Calling the "bulk" of evidence led by CBI "hypothetical and assumptious", the Court rejected the submissions of phone call history linking Justice Yadav with the other accused person who wanted to send the amount to her.

Referring to the testimonies of Nodal Officers of various service providers, the Court noted that, "a subscriber and the actual user of a phone may not necessarily be the same person as has been stated in so many words by the Nodal Officers."

"In many cases the subscriber and user are two different individuals. The Call Detail Records produced on record are not supported by a chart showing the locations of the two people interacting with each other at a particular time," said the Court.

No Legal Evidence To Hold That Justice Yadav Actually Received The Amount

The Court highlighted that "there is no legal evidence available on record" to hold that Justice Yadav had actually received the alleged cash."

Consequently, it ordered acquittal.

Narender Singh, Public Prosecutor for the CBI. 

S.K. Garg Narwana and V.G. Narwana, Advocates, counsel for the accused Justice Nirmal Yadav.

A.S. Chahal, Advocate, counsel for the accused Ravinder Singh.

B.S. Riar & Shri Hitesh Puri, Advocates, counsel for the accused Rajiv Gupta.

Hitesh Puri, Advocate, counsel for the accused Nirmal Singh.