Cash at judge’s door: CBI deliberately concealed facts,says defence

Speaking to The Indian Express,Advocate Amit Rishi,counsel for

Bansal,said: “The CBI seems to be confused in its investigation. The property case (RSA 550 of 2007) was first argued by Sanjiv Bansal on February 22,2007. The case was listed before Justice (Retd) Kiran Anand Lall,who had issued notices to R K Mittal. Petitioner Veena Goyal got a stay on March 8,2007. Thereafter,the case remained on the roster of another sitting High Court Judge from July 2007 to December 2007.”

After the change of roster,the case first came up for hearing before Justice (Retd) Nirmal Yadav in February 2008.

“Had it been that Bansal was engaged by Veena Goyal after the case came up for hearing before Justice Yadav,a presumption could have been drawn that Bansal was engaged with the specific intention to win the case. But the stay was given a year back.” As per the CBI chargesheet,first reported by The Indian Express,Justice Yadav had allegedly taken Rs 15 lakh for deciding the case in favour of a party represented by Sanjiv Bansal. The case was decided on March 11,2008. The counsel said Rajiv Gupta,co-accused and business associate of Bansal,had purchased the plot number 601,Sector 16,Panchkula on May 15,2007 (as per the chargesheet).

“Rajiv purchased the house a year before the case came up for hearing before Justice Yadav,how can the CBI claim that Rs 15 lakh was meant for this plot?” Rishi said. Bansal’s other defence counsel,Advocate Ravinder Rana,said the CBI claim that the date of hearing was brought forward is with evidence.

“There is no judicial order to prove that the date of the case was advanced,” he said. “Mere cutting on the brief (file) of a lawyer is no evidence. The investigation is lopsided. Lawyers were replaced at both sides. While senior lawyer Arun Jain was replaced by Sanjiv Bansal for the petitioner,Ashok Aggarwal was replaced by senior lawyer ML Sarin (counsel for the respondent). If replacement amounts to presumption,the CBI should also investigate as to why the respondent changed his lawyer.”

As per CBI investigation,Ravinder Singh – a close friend of Justice Yadav — was in touch with Justice Yadav,Sanjiv Bansal and respondent R K Mittal on the date of decision of the case,he said. “Why has the CBI not explained why Ravinder Singh will be in touch with the respondent who lost the case and why not with Veena Goyal,the petitioner?”

In its chargesheet,the CBI has stated that Ravinder Singh had called up R K Mittal on the date of decision of the case. “Had the CBI claimed that during the time,after the case was reserved,Ravinder Singh was in touch with R K Mittal,only then a negative presumption can be drawn,” he said.