Giving a new twist to the infamous cash-at-judge's-door case, the counsel appearing for justice Nirmal Yadav, a retired high court judge who figures as the accused, submitted that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) does not have any “direct or authentic” evidence to prove the allegations levelled against all accused in the case.
Building up a case of “no evidence” against the accused, justice Nirmal Yadav's counsel advocate SK Garg Narwana, relied on CBI SP's report sent to the Chief Justice of India in this case, while seeking a prosecution sanction in which the investigating agency admits for not having any “authentic evidence.”
Ripping apart CBI's allegations that Sanjiv Bansal, former additional advocate general of Haryana had used Ravinder Singh, a Delhi-based hotelier as the “middleman” to influence justice Yadav, advocate Narwana read out the relevant portion of the SP's report in which they had sought prosecution sanction, which said: “But these revelations have not been substantiated during the investigations so far.”
In August 2008, a case was registered under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Yadav and Delhi-based hotelier Ravinder, along with Sanjiv Bansal, former additional advocate general of Haryana; Rajiv Gupta, a Chandigarh-based businessman; and one Nirmal Singh.
The case was initially registered by the UT police on August 18, 2008, after Rs. 15 lakh, allegedly intended to be given to justice Yadav, were wrongly delivered at the residence of justice Nirmaljit Kaur, another high court judge, on August 13, 2008. The case was subsequently handed over to the CBI.
Submitting arguments before the court, advocate Narwana said: “The CBI has a number of times conceded that there was no evidence. So now trying to link the decision of justice Yadav pertaining to the disputed plot 601, in Sector 16, Panchkula, is immaterial. It is only created to concoct and mislead the court.”
He even accused the CBI of being “unfair” in filing the case, which claimed, “was done only to create sensationalism in the matter.”
“The SP report and CBI's senior public prosecutor had admitted that there was no direct or authentic evidence, then the issue of being tainted or taking bribe does not arise. The CBI has not been able to show any material on record, nor any evidence that the so-called Rs. 15 lakh were for some consideration,” submitted Narwana while arguing against framing of charges.
No calls exchanged between justice Yadav and Bansal
Defence counsel, SK Garg Narwana, while countering the evidence of the CBI about call details, submitted that there was not even a single call exchange between justice Yadav and Sanjiv Bansal. He even pointed out that even on August 13, 2008, when the amount of Rs. 15 lakh was wrongly delivered there was not even a single phone call between the two.