Cash-at-judges’ door: Court to frame charges Nov 26

CBI Special Public Prosecutor Anupam Gupta opposed an application moved by Yadav seeking exemption from personal appearance.

Written by RAGHAV OHRI | Chandigarh | Published: November 12, 2013 12:49:43 am

A special CBI Court here on Monday said it will frame charges against Justice (retd) Nirmal Yadav and other accused in the cash-at-judge’s door case. Yadav and others have been directed to remain present in the court on November 26,the day charges will be framed against them under Prevention of Corruption Act.

Justice N K Sanghi of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had on September 13 virtually stayed trial by summoning the entire original record from the CBI court acting on a revision petition filed by Justice Yadav. However,the HC on October 26,on the administrative side,returned the original record to the CBI court and decided to keep only a photocopy to facilitate resumption of proceedings by the trial court.

Special CBI Judge Vimal Kumar announced that since the record has been returned and there is no stay on trial,charges will be framed.

CBI Special Public Prosecutor Anupam Gupta opposed an application moved by Yadav seeking exemption from personal appearance. The court made it clear Yadav is exempted from appearance only for today and will have to remain present on November 26.

Dubbing the development (returning of record to trial Court) as “rare”,S K Garg,counsel for Yadav,requested the court not to proceed with trial and await the outcome of Yadav’s petition in HC. Garg said the trial at hand was of “peculiar nature”.

Stoutly opposing the assertion,Anupam Gupta asserted “Justice Sanghi heard the case for three hearings yet chose not to issue notice to the CBI. It was an ex-parte order. Justice Sanghi should have called the CBI. Why did the Judge not issue notices to the CBI?”

Co-accused and lawyer Sanjiv Bansal argued that judicial propriety demands that the lower court should seek clarification from the HC as to whether the CBI Court can proceed with trial or not. He added a judicial order cannot be undone by an administrative order of the High Court. He said that such a development is “unheard of”.

For all the latest News Archive News, download Indian Express App

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement