The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) came under severe judicial criticism for its handling of the 2008 bribery case against former Punjab and Haryana high court judge Nirmal Yadav, with a special court lambasting the agency for “fabricating evidence” instead of adhering to its initial stance of closing the case.
In her detailed 89-page judgment released on Wednesday, special judge Alka Malik categorically said CBI should have filed a closure report instead of manufacturing evidence through a key prosecution witness, RK Jain. The court held that Jain’s testimony was completely unreliable, built on “improvements, assumptions, presumptions, hypotheses and falsehoods”.
“It would have been highly appreciable on the part of a premier investigating agency of the stature of the Central Bureau of Investigation to stick to its very first stance of filing the closure report in the matter in the court of competent jurisdiction, rather than fabricating a highly unworthy of trust evidence in the form of RK Jain,” held the judgment, marking a major embarrassment for CBI and raising serious concerns over the agency’s conduct in high-profile probes.
The case against justice Yadav, then a sitting judge, stemmed from an incident in August 2008 when a bag containing ₹15 lakh was mistakenly delivered to the residence of another Punjab and Haryana high court judge, justice Nirmaljit Kaur. Her staff reported the incident to the Chandigarh Police, leading to the registration of a first information report (FIR). The case was later transferred to CBI, which initially sought to close the investigation in December 2009 because the state government declined to grant a prosecution sanction citing an opinion by then attorney general Milon K Banerji. Banerji had opined “there is not a shred of evidence” in the case against the judge and others.
{{/usCountry}}The case against justice Yadav, then a sitting judge, stemmed from an incident in August 2008 when a bag containing ₹15 lakh was mistakenly delivered to the residence of another Punjab and Haryana high court judge, justice Nirmaljit Kaur. Her staff reported the incident to the Chandigarh Police, leading to the registration of a first information report (FIR). The case was later transferred to CBI, which initially sought to close the investigation in December 2009 because the state government declined to grant a prosecution sanction citing an opinion by then attorney general Milon K Banerji. Banerji had opined “there is not a shred of evidence” in the case against the judge and others.
{{/usCountry}}However, the CBI judge rejected the closure report in March 2010 and ordered a further investigation, prompting the agency to file a charge sheet in 2011. The prosecution alleged that the money, delivered by a clerk of former Haryana additional advocate general Sanjeev Bansal (now deceased), was intended for justice Yadav as gratification for a judgment in a property dispute.
The court found that CBI had built its case primarily on the testimony of RK Jain, then an additional district judge, who had lost a case adjudicated by justice Yadav. The judgment noted that Jain’s statement underwent significant alterations between 2008 and 2010, raising serious doubts about its credibility.
Rejecting Jain’s claim that he remained silent due to pressure from justice Yadav, the court held: “No action of any type was ever initiated by any agency of the High Court against him during the intervening period... In fact, he could not state even one fact which could be termed as ‘pressure’ exerted on him.”
Furthermore, the judgment noted the illogicality of the CBI’s narrative that a sitting judge would accept a bribe five months after delivering a verdict.
Given the glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, the court acquitted all accused, including justice Yadav, businessman Ravinder Bhasin and two others.