After a prolonged legal battle spanning 14 years, a special CBI Court in Chandigarh acquitted former Punjab and Haryana High Court Judge Nirmal Yadav in the ‘Cash at Judge’s Door’ case on Saturday (March 29). With grave allegations of bribery and corruption, the case saw several legal twists and turns, multiple hearings, and changes in the judicial bench. Speaking to reporters after the verdict, Justice Yadav said, “Judiciary is really fair, of course it has taken a long time, maybe due to many reasons… but now it is done.” Here is a recall. Who is former Judge Nirmal Yadav? Former High Court Judge Nirmal Yadav enrolled as a member of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1975. She also taught law at the Panjab University in Chandigarh as a part-time lecturer. She was appointed in the office of Advocate General, Haryana, in 1979, and was then selected as Additional District and Sessions Judge in 1986. Having worked as a Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, and as a Judicial Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, she joined the Punjab and Haryana HC in 2002. Four years later, she was elevated as Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. She was transferred to the Uttarakhand High Court, assumed office in February 2010 and retired after around one year. What was the ‘Cash at Judge’s Door’ case? The case dates back to August 13, 2008, when Rs 15 lakh in cash was allegedly delivered at the residence of another Punjab and Haryana HC judge, Justice Nirmaljit Kaur. It was alleged that the money was meant to be sent to Justice Yadav but was wrongly delivered to the other judge’s residence due to confusion over their similar names. Justice Kaur informed the then HC Chief Justice and the police, and an FIR was registered on August 16, 2008. Ten days later, the case was transferred to the CBI, which registered a fresh FIR on August 28. According to the CBI probe, the money was delivered by a clerk of former Haryana Additional Advocate General Sanjeev Bansal, who allegedly called up Justice Kaur and said it was mistakenly delivered at her residence. What happened in the CBI court trial? After more than one year of investigation, the CBI filed a closure report in December 2009. However, it was opposed by then CBI prosecutor Anupam Gupta, and the Court thus ordered further investigation. In January 2009, the CBI sought a sanction to prosecute Justice Yadav, and the HC granted it in November 2010. After Justice Yadav unsuccessfully challenged it, the sanction finally came from the President of India’s office in March 2011, following which CBI filed a chargesheet. The main accused, Sanjiv Bansal, filed an application for quashing the FIR against him, saying he was only a “courier boy”. In his petition, Bansal claimed that Delhi-based hotelier Ravinder Singh handed over the money to him. However, in July 2013, the special CBI court ordered charges to be framed against the accused, which was done in January 2014. The three others accused in the case were Rajiv Gupta, who claimed the money was part of a land deal, Nirmal Singh, who gave a false statement about the money’s purpose, and Prakash Ram, who delivered the money. The CBI did not charge sheet the clerk. The trial against Bansal was dropped following his death in 2017. On January 18, 2014, the special CBI court framed charges against Justice Yadav after the Supreme Court dismissed her plea for a stay on the trial court’s proceedings. The CBI held that Justice Yadav had committed an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which covers public officials. During the trial, the prosecution cited 84 witnesses, but only 69 were examined. In February this year, the HC allowed the CBI to re-examine 10 witnesses within four weeks and further asked the trial court to ensure that no unnecessary adjournments were granted. What was the CBI court’s verdict? Under Judge Alka Malik, the CBI court acquitted Justice Nirmal Yadav and the other accused persons on the grounds of lack of evidence and contradictions in witness statements. A detailed judgement is yet to be released by the court.
