Retired high court judge justice Nirmal Yadav, the accused in the infamous cash at judge's door scam, "desperately and urgently" needed Rs 15 lakh, a fact evident from the "flurry of calls" exchanged between the accused, claimed the CBI during a resumed hearing of arguments in the case on Monday.
In 2008, a case was registered under various sections of Prevention of Corruption Act against justice Yadav along with Sanjeev Bansal, former additional advocate general of Haryana; Rajiv Gupta, a Chandigarh-based businessman; Ravinder Singh Bhasin, a Delhi-based hotelier and one Nirmal Singh.
During the hearing, CBI special public prosecutor, Anupam Gupta submitted: "Justice Yadav had demanded Rs 15 lakh from Ravinder Singh, a close friend on August 13 and he in-turn asked Sanjiv Bansal to deliver the same. As Bansal was travelling, he asked his wife Renu Bansal to deliver the amount to justice Yadav, which was wrongly delivered at justice Nirmaljit Kaur's residence."
Terming the "wrong delivery" as a "blunder crucial for unraveling", Gupta submitted: "Bansal knew the dubious transaction, thus he created a false alibi. There was absolutely no confusion that the money was meant for justice Yadav and no one else."
CBI special prosecutor, Gupta, pressing for framing of charges against the accused said: "With absolute legal and moral certainty, the CBI states that the money was meant for justice Yadav and not for justice Nirmaljit Kaur."
"The flurry of calls exchanged between various accused from August 13 evening to August 14 morning shows the urgency and desperation. Justice Yadav was repeatedly calling Ravinder after the said amount was not delivered to her. Her desperate calls to Ravinder and he in turn calling up Bansal to ensure that Rs 15 lakh is delivered to her (justice Yadav) despite wrong delivery, shows the urgency. The amount was delivered to justice Yadav by co-accused Rajiv Gupta the next day, despite the wrong delivery made the previous evening," Gupta submitted.
"The conduct of the accused (Bansal) in creating false alibi speaks volumes. Why did he not speak the plain truth that the money was meant for justice Yadav, which was handed over by Ravinder Singh? Why did he persist on concealing justice Yadav's name during the three-day preliminary inquiry conducted by the UT police? Why did Bansal and Ravinder abscond immediately after registration of the FIR," Gupta argued.
To substantiate the allegations further, Gupta read out the statement of the wives of accused Sanjiv Bansal and accused Ravinder Singh, in which both had stated that the money was meant for justice Nirmal Yadav.
"Justice Yadav knew the Delhi-based hotelier very well and they both used to talk frequently over phone," Mohinder Kaur, wife of Ravinder Singh, had stated before the investigating agency and whose statement was read out in the court by Gupta.
Kaur had admitted that on August 13, 2008, her husband had told her that he had sent Rs 15 lakh for justice Yadav, which was delivered wrongly.
Corroborating the allegations that the money was meant for justice Yadav, the CBI prosecutor said: "Sanjiv Bansal's wife had directed Parkash Ram, a junior clerk, to hand over the packet containing the money to justice Yadav as instructed by Bansal. The directions were clear and suffered no ambiguity, as corroborated by the statements of different witnesses separately."
The case made headlines after Rs 15 lakh, allegedly intended to be given to Yadav as bribe, were wrongly delivered at the residence of justice Nirmaljit Kaur, another high court judge, on August 13, 2008, following which she reported the matter to the UT police. Investigations subsequently handed over to the CBI had revealed that the money was meant for Yadav. It was on March 4, 2011, when the CBI had filed a charge sheet in the case.