Framing of charges deferred as justice Yadav fails to appear
The framing of the charges against retired high court judge justice Nirmal Yadav and four others in a corruption case was adjourned as she failed to appear before the court citing health reasons, even as the CBI counsel termed the plea a 'sham'.chandigarh Updated: Aug 12, 2013 22:03 IST
The framing of the charges against retired high court judge justice Nirmal Yadav and four others in a corruption case was adjourned as she failed to appear before the court citing health reasons, even as the CBI counsel termed the plea a 'sham'.
Since personal appearance of accused is legally imperative for framing of charges, by not appearing before the court on Monday, justice Yadav has bought time to file a revision against the orders of framing of charges. The court allowed her application and deferred the hearing to August 27. The court ordered all the accused need to be present on next hearing.
Justice Yadav is an accused in the cash at judge's door case, registered by the CBI in August 2008 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Other accused in the case are Delhi-based hotelier Ravinder Singh, former additional advocate general of Haryana Sanjiv Bansal, Chandigarh-based businessman Rajiv Gupta, and one Nirmal Singh.
All accused except justice Yadav were present in the court.
"She is suffering from lumbar spondylosis and is taking physiotherapy treatment, as she is still not fit to travel long distances," read the application moved by the counsel of justice Yadav, seeking exemption from personal appearance.
CBI special public prosecutor Anupam Gupta opposed the application, saying, "The plea submitted of ill health is a sham…it is a pretence. It is exceptional and extraordinary for Yadav not to appear on the date of framing of charges."
Voicing strong opposition to the plea submitted, Gupta submitted, "Yadav is acting as if she is above the law. As a former high court judge, she is not expected to obstruct the administration of justice in this fashion." He even demanded inquiry against the doctors who have granted any such medical certificate to Yadav.
Yadav making mockery of law: CBI counsel
Registering a strong protest, CBI counsel Anupam Gupta said, "Justice Yadav cannot be treated differently. It is clear attempt of subversion of justice on her behalf."
Expressing "deep anguish" on medical certificates being granted to Yadav, Gupta submitted, "Even medical institutes are accountable to law and criminal justice cant's be subverted in this manner." He submitted that if the institutes like PGIMS Rohtak give certificates for asking, it is nothing less than making mockery of law as well as medical profession.
"Inquiry be ordered against the doctors who have granted any medical certificate to Yadav," he demanded.
"It is their right to challenge the order but framing of charges cannot be deferred for this. Framing of charges is consequential of order of framing of charges….both order of framing of charges as well as framing of charges can be challenged but proceedings cannot be deferred," he said.
Justice Yadav wants to file revision petition
"We are not running away from the court, all we are seeking exemption," submitted defence counsel of justice Yadav, SK Garg Narwana, while moving the plea for personal exemption, seeking three weeks' time to move criminal revision against the orders dated July 31, 2013 of CBI special judge, Vimal Kumar, ordering framing of the charges in the case.
Exemptions too many
Justice Yadav had last appeared before the court on August 27, 2011, when she was granted bail by the court and had sought exemption from personal appearance more than a dozen times on the same grounds.
The case had made headlines after Rs 15 lakh was delivered wrongly at the residence of justice Nirmaljit Kaur, another judge of the high court, on August 13, 2008, following which she reported the matter to the Chandigarh police. The investigations were subsequently handed over to CBI. The investigations them revealed that the money was meant for justice Nirmal Yadav.
It was on March 4, 2011, when the CBI had filed a charge sheet against justice Yadav and four others under sections 11 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), Section 193 (related to false evidence) read with Section 192 (fabricating false evidence), Section 196 (using evidence known to be false) and Section 199 (false statement made in declaration) of the IPC.