The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday asked Justice (retd) Nirmal Yadavs counsel to produce the additional evidence gathered by the Central Bureau of Investigation during its re-investigation.
Her counsel on Friday sought time to produce statements of the witnesses that were recorded by the CBI in its re-investigation. The direction was passed after Yadavs counsel sought time to produce the statements of those people who have been made witnesses by the CBI in the infamous Cash-at-Judges door scam. Re-investigation was ordered by special CBI court in 2010 after the court had refused to accept the closure report initially submitted by the CBI.
The high court on Friday asked Yadavs counsel as to whether the closure report was not accepted by the lower court due to lack of want of sanction or lack of evidence. The high court bench on Friday also orally observed that the discharge petition filed by co-accused Sanjiv Bansal was not maintainable.
Bansal had filed a petition seeking discharge from the case. Dismissing his plea,the special CBI Judge Vimal Kumar had passed an exhaustive order holding that charges be framed against all the accused.
The case will come up for resumed hearing on Saturday. No notices have been issued so far on the petition filed by the retired Punjab and Haryana High Court Judge.
Yadav had moved the high court against the special CBI court order of framing charges against her and other accused involved in the scam.
Holding that there is overwhelming evidence against her and other accused in the Cash-at-Judges door scam,Special CBI Judge Vimal Kumar had fixed August 27 as the date for framing of charges against Justice Yadav and other accused.
A day before it was to happen,Justice Yadav had filed an appeal against the order,which came up for resumed hearing on Friday. A high court judge had earlier recused from hearing the case.
In her appeal,Justice Yadav submitted that there is no direct evidence against her in the case made out by the CBI. Terming the special CBI court order as erroneous,Yadav demanded quashing of the order and appealed against the framing of charges.
Contending that the lower court has erred in not recording some of her contentions,Yadav reiterated that there was no official relationship between her and co-accused Ravinder Singh,Delhi businessman. Her appeal further reads that there is nothing on record,with the CBI,to prove that Yadav knew the relationship between Ravinder Singh and co-accused lawyer Sanjiv Bansal. In a detailed judgment,special CBI court in Chandigarh termed the defence stand as being untenable.
In its 63-page order,the court had pointed out that direct contradictions between the statements of Justice Yadav and other accused. Justice Nirmal Yadav denied all facts dated August 13,2008 and August 14,2008 in toto,although other accused have admitted the same to some extent, the judgment reads.