A special CBI court here on Tuesday allowed over two weeks' time to former Punjab and Haryana high court judge Nirmal Yadav, an accused in the cash-at-judge's door scam, to move the Supreme Court to challenge a recent high court order which had refused to stay the trial in the five-year-old case.
Justice Yadav had moved an application to adjourn the framing of charges saying she intended to move the Supreme Court to challenge the court order that the charges be framed against her.
Considering her application "in interest of justice", CBI special judge Vimal Kumar posted the hearing of the case for December 12.
CBI special prosecutor Anupam Gupta opposed the application, terming it as "delaying tactics". He said, "The order of the high court declining to stay the proceedings is well reasoned and strong rejection of the prayer. The framing of charges is merely consequential of the court order of July 31, thus the charges should be framed as there is no stay on the proceedings."
Justice Yadav is named as an accused in the cash at judge's door scam, registered by the CBI in August 2008 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with Delhi-based hotelier Ravinder Singh, former Haryana additional advocate general Sanjiv Bansal, Chandigarh-based businessman Rajiv Gupta and one Nirmal Singh.
I have full faith in judiciary: Justice Yadav
"I have full faith in judiciary and have done nothing wrong," said Justice Yadav while moving out of the courtroom after the case was adjourned.
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 the CBI. The investigations revealed that the money was meant for Justice Nirmal Yadav.
On March 4, 2011, the CBI filed a chargesheet against Justice Nirmal 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. On July 31, the court had ordered framing of charges against the accused.