Judge bribery case: CBI counsel slams Yadav for ‘buying time’https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/judge-bribery-case-cbi-counsel-slams-yadav-for-buying-time/

Judge bribery case: CBI counsel slams Yadav for ‘buying time’

Terming the adjournment sought by counsel for Justice (retired) Nirmal Yadav,chargesheeted in the infamous judge bribery case,as “most unfair”,special public prosecutor,CBI,Anupam Gupta has minced no words in stating that if “there is any defence strategy it should be transparent”.

Terming the adjournment sought by counsel for Justice (retired) Nirmal Yadav,chargesheeted in the infamous judge bribery case,as “most unfair”,special public prosecutor,CBI,Anupam Gupta has minced no words in stating that if “there is any defence strategy it should be transparent”.

Gupta’s remarks came in response to an adjournment sought by Yadav’s counsel during the resumed hearing of a petition filed by the retired judge seeking photocopies of the records of Union Ministry of Law and Justice pertaining to her prosecution sanction.

Last week the petition came up for hearing before Justice Ranjit Singh,who had adjourned the case for March 25 for arguments after consent of both the parties .

As the petition came up for hearing Monday,the Bench was informed that the petitioner’s counsel has sought adjournment. Reacting to this,senior lawyer and special public prosecutor for CBI Anupam Gupta said “it is very unfair “. Gupta added that if the petitioner’s counsel had any objection the same could have been conveyed to the Bench last week itself.

Dubbing this as “buying time”,Gupta said,“if there is any defence strategy it should be transparent”. Justice Ranjit Singh also observed that perhaps the petitioner did not want the Bench to hear the case. The case has been adjourned to April 5,a day after Justice Ranjit Singh,retires on April 4. Justice Yadav had approached the court after her same plea was rejected by the Special CBI court here on February 2.

Advertising

It was petitioned that if the record was lying with the court there was no harm in giving it to the petitioner.