Pointing out contradictions between the defence taken by Justice (retd) Nirmal Yadav and the stand taken by advocate Sanjiv Bansal,special CBI Judge Vimal Kumar on Monday observed that there was a direct contradiction in the defence taken by the two.
Justice Yadav and Bansal are accused in the cash-at-judges-door scam. After Bansal concluded his arguments on the issue of charge,the special CBI Judge orally remarked that Yadavs stand was totally contradictory to the one taken by Bansal.
Elaborating,the CBI Judge observed that Yadavs counsel has denied the incident of August 13 and 14,2008 (receipt of Rs 15 lakh at Yadavs residence). Referring to submissions made by Yadavs counsel last week,the Judge remarked that Yadavs counsel had clearly stated that he does not admit anything with regard to receipt of money.
However,Bansal has submitted that he had got the packet of Rs 15 lakh delivered at the residence of Justice Yadav on the morning of August 14,2008 through his business partner Rajiv Gupta. Bansal has also said that he was merely a courier in delivering the money to Justice Yadav which was sent by Ravinder Singh,a close friend of Yadav and a co-accused. Bansal also said that he had no mens rea in getting the money delivered.
In another significant observation,the court questioned the accused why they (accused) be not charged with concealment of the fact that the money was meant for Justice Yadav. The CBI judge remarked that from August 13,2008 to August 16,2008,the accused concealed the name of Justice Yadav and did not disclose the truth. Instead,it was said falsely that the money was meant for one Nirmal Singh. The court questioned the accused why they be not charged for giving false information to screen offender under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In its chargesheet,the CBI has not invoked this Section (a bigger offence) against the accused. However,the court put a query as to why Sanjiv Bansal,Ravinder Singh,Rajiv Gupta and Nirmal Singh be not charged with for this offence.
Responding to the courts query,Bansal read out several judgments to say that Section 201 was not attracted against the accused.
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines