Everything in this case stinks: CBI

The judgment pertained to a disputed plot in Panchkula for which the actual owner,Anand Kumar Jain,had engaged Sanjiv Bansal.

“The March 11,2008 judgment of Justice Yadav cannot but be treated and described as an act of judicial favour. The amount of 15 lakhs was not paid to Justice Yadav for the Solan land deal but for the said judgment,” Gupta submitted before the special CBI Court on Wednesday.

He added,“The manner in which Bansal’s client (in whose favour Justice Yadav decided the Panchkula plot case) not only offered the brief but also his property to Bansal,the manner in which the losing party,who was approached and won over by Bansal,exhibited behaviour demonstrably inconsistent with the normal behaviour of a litigant,the manner in which Ravinder Singh mediated between the two opposing parties,his shadow looms large over the entire judicial exercise”.

Launching a scathing attack on Justice Yadav,the CBI prosecutor said that Yadav’s judicial adjudication of the case was “injudicious”.

He further submitted,“putting it simply and plainly,this was not professional conduct on Bansal’s part but conduct most unprofessional and unethical. So far as Justice Yadav is concerned,her judicial adjudication of the case was most injudicious”.

Gupta then took the Court through the money trail. He demonstrated that the plot was eventually purchased by Rajiv Gupta,business partner of Sanjiv Bansal and that the purchase was “financed” by Bansal.

He averred that the transactions provide “complete and conclusive evidence” of the purchase “financed” by Bansal.