Cash at judge's door: HC refuses to stay trial
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday refused to stay the proceedings before the special CBI court, Chandigarh, in the Rs 15-lakh cash-at-judge's-door case of 2008 in which former high court judge Nirmal Yadav is an accused. The case is pending before the trial court for framing of charges on November 26.chandigarh Updated: Nov 20, 2013 00:24 IST
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday refused to stay the proceedings before the special CBI court, Chandigarh, in the Rs 15-lakh cash-at-judge's-door case of 2008 in which former high court judge Nirmal Yadav is an accused. The case is pending before the trial court for framing of charges on November 26.
Hearing Yadav's petition, the court headed by justice Naresh Kumar Sanghi asked her counsel SK Garg, "Can you show any judgment that trial can be stayed by the high court in a the Prevention of Corruption Act?"
Special CBI judge Vimal Kumar had on November 11 made it clear that since there was no stay on the proceedings by the HC, he would go ahead with framing of charges. He had summoned Yadav and other accused for November 26.
When Garg argued that notices should be issued to the CBI and "since the revision petition has been admitted, after framing of charges (by trial court) the petition (in high court) will become redundant", justice Sanghi said, "If you are able to satisfy the court, I'll issue notice; otherwise why should I call the other party (CBI)?" The court has now directed the petitioner's counsel to address the court on November 22. He also wanted a reply on a Supreme Court judgment of 2001, in which it said, "In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, there can be no stay of trials."
Further, justice Sanghi said, "Admitted case (Yadav's earlier revision petition) has to go for hearing before regular criminal cases bench. It is not with me. Why now this application before us?" Garg submitted that since the trial court had summoned the petitioner for framing of charges, a request has been made for staying trial court's proceedings till pendency of the revision petition before the high court.
Justice Sanghi on September 13 had admitted the revision petition for next hearing within three months, and had summoned trial court record. After keeping photocopies, original record was returned to the trial court.
"Trial court should not have sent original record," justice Sanghi said. The court also mentioned about a 2010 administrative order that photocopies of original record should be sent by the trial court to the high court. Justice Sanghi asked Garg, "You tell me in how many cases after the decision of framing of charges, the case is postponed."
Anguished with the "misleading news" of high court proceedings, justice Sanghi said, "When I admitted the petition, it is presumed that notices have been issued to the parties. I don't know how newspapers published that notices have not been issued and case was admitted."