CBI itself admits it has no direct evidence: Nirmal Yadav’s counsel

“A case of favour is only made out if the beneficiary knows who is favouring him/ her. In this case,Justice Yadav did not know that the ticket was purchased by Bansal,” argued Narwana. Yadav’s counsel concluded arguments on Saturday. Sanjeev Bansal argued that there is not even a single phone call exchanged between him and Nirmal Yadav in the hundreds of phone calls produced by the CBI. He also argued that CBI’s allegations are totally false. Earlier in the day,Narawana had argued that “no fresh evidence” was provided to then Chief Justice of India S H Kapadia,in the prosecution report filed the CBI. Narwana repeatedly mentioned the inadequacy of the investigating agency saying that “former CJI (S H Kapadia) was not competent to review the earlier order”.

The defense also said that the money delivered at Justice Nirmaljit Kaur’s residence was on August 13,2008 while the judgement by Yadav in favour of advocate Sanjeev Bansal,in the property dispute case,was delivered in March,2008,arguing that it was unlikely for anyone to ask for a bribe after a gap of five months.

Quoting the CBI’s report presented before Kapadia to attain prosecution sanction,Narwana said that the agency itself mentioned that “regarding the revelations made by the CBI,they could not substantiate the charges of corruption”. Moreover,the statements of the witnesses recorded by the CBI said that the amount of Rs 15 lakh involved in the case was for the purchase of the land in Solan,and the land was indeed bought too,said Narwana.