CBI suppressing file containing denial of prosecution sanction: defence
Making out a case for discharge, the counsel of justice Nirmal Yadav (retd), who is an accused in the 'cash for judge' case, while concluding the arguments on Saturday, accused the CBI of 'suppressing' the file pertaining to denial of the prosecution sanction by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI).chandigarh Updated: Jul 28, 2013 00:45 IST
Making out a case for discharge, the counsel of justice Nirmal Yadav (retd), who is an accused in the 'cash for judge' case, while concluding the arguments on Saturday, accused the CBI of 'suppressing' the file pertaining to denial of the prosecution sanction by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Appearing for justice Yadav, advocate SK Garg Narwana claimed that CBI was denied prosecution sanction by the then CJI KG Balakrishnan through an order dated May 11, 2010. The defence counsel alleged that the CBI was trying to 'suppress' the file as the order was missing from the court file.
Taking strong exception to the accusation, CBI's special public prosecutor Anupam Gupta said, “This is nothing but a myth making. These are the government of India files and CBI had no access to these files which were provided to the court by the government of India.”
He submitted, “We have already stated time and again and I repeat that CBI had sought sanction for prosecution only on June 16, 2010 after completing further investigations, which was granted by the then CJI SH Kapadia on July 28, 2010. No question of CBI seeking sanction prior to June 16 arises.”
Pointing out that there is no order of the CJI dated May 11, 2010 on record, CBI special judge Vimal Kumar asked the counsel of justice Yadav as to how CJI could decline sanction in May 2010 when the CBI sought the same in June 2010.
Prejudicial trail, says defence counsel
Concluding the arguments, Delhi-based hotelier, Ravinder Singh's counsel AS Chahal, said, “It is nothing but bogus investigations and would be a futile trail. The evidence is confused. It is prejudicial trail and unfair.”
Seeking discharge, justice Yadav's counsel submitted, “I cannot admit or deny anything at this stage; prima facie no case is made out. It would be media trail for next 10 years and should be buried immediately.”
Putting forth that no case is made out, former additional advocate general Haryana, Sanjiv Bansal, submitted, “The CBI investigations have failed to establish any connection between justice Yadav and me. There are no call details or any evidence brought on record by the CBI. The central agency has even failed to show that justice Yadav was aware about the friendship between Ravinder and me. The case lacks ingredients of section 11 of the prevention of corruption act.
Arguments over, order likely on July 31
The CBI special judge, Vimal Kumar, on Saturday concluded hearing of the arguments in the infamous cash for judge case. The court is now likely to pronounce orders on framing of charges on July 31.
In August 2008, a case was registered against justice Nirmal Yadav, a retired high court judge, and Delhi-based hotelier Ravinder Singh, along with Sanjiv Bansal, former additional advocate general of Haryana; Rajiv Gupta, a Chandigarh-based businessman; and one Nirmal Singh.
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 Yadav.