CBI fabricated evidence to frame Justice Nirmal Yadav: Chandigarh court

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) fabricated evidence against former Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice Nirmal Yadav to frame her in a corruption case of 2008, a Chandigarh court recently said while acquitting Justice Yadav in the case..In the judgment delivered on March 29, Special Judge (CBI) Alka Malik opined that the CBI should have stuck to its initial closure report in the matter instead of presenting a witness testimony based on falsehood and assumptions. “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 Sh. R.K. Jain (PW26), whose testimony has been proved to be based upon all improvements, assumptions, presumptions, hypothesis and all falsehood,” the judge said..The case against Justice Yadav, then a sitting High Court judge and former judicial officer, originated in August 2008 when a bag containing ₹15 lakh was delivered at the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, another sitting judge of the High Court. The matter was reported by Justice Kaur's peon to the Chandigarh Police which registered a First Information Report (FIR). The case was later transferred to the CBI which initially filed a closure report in the case which was rejected. It then filed a charge sheet against the accused in 2011.As per the prosecution, the money delivered by a clerk of former Haryana Additional Advocate General Sanjeev Bansal, was meant for Justice Yadav but due to the similarity in the names of the two judges, it mistakenly reached Justice Kaur's residence. It was alleged that the amount was gratification for a judgment delivered by Justice Yadav in a property dispute case. Raj Kumar Jain alias Raj Kumar Mittal – then an Additional District Judge, was a respondent in that case and Justice Yadav had ruled against him..All the accused in the case were acquitted on March 29. In the judgment made available today, the trial court said Jain as a witness was absolutely unworthy of trust. “The witness has very specifically mentioned during the course of his examination that he had made a statement before CBI probably in the month of September, 2008 wherein he had omitted all the relevant facts, which he had stated before the Investigating Officer during his supplementary statement made by him in the year 2010 as has been recorded in Ex.PW26/D-2. He did not mention about his doubts that the RSA was decided against him for illegal gratification received by the Presiding Judge.” The Court also rejected his claim that he had remained silent due to pressure from Justice Yadav. “No action of any type was ever initiated by any Agency of the High Court against him during the intervening period. He was not transferred out midterm during that period. In fact he could not state even one fact which could be termed as "pressure" exerted on him by A-5 during that period. Such general allegations can be made by any person at a minutes notice. The entire statement of PW26 is a clear improvement on the first statement made by him during the investigation of this case.”.It went on to observe that CBI had picked up a person who was highly aggrieved by Justice Yadav’s judgment, and "used his services to weave a case" against her. It also raised doubts over the CBI story that the money was paid more than five months after the decision against Jain.“It will be absolutely immature and imprudent on the part of even a layman to accept the contention that a sitting Judge of the High Court will receive financial illegal gratification/undue advantage in a matter which was decided five months prior to the alleged financial transaction much less a legal mind, which has been trained to separate the grain from the chaff and fish out the truth in the matter. In the light of these observations the evidence of PW26 shall become absolutely irrelevant and redundant in this case,” the Court said..It will be absolutely immature and imprudent on the part of even a layman to accept the contention that a sitting Judge of the High Court will receive financial illegal gratification/undue advantage in a matter which was decided five months prior to the alleged financial transaction much less a legal mind.CBI Court.The Court further found that the CBI in its first investigation had found all the accused in this case innocent and had submitted the closure report before the court on December 19, 2009. A supplementary statement of Jain was recorded by CBI after that, the Court noted.The CBI relied upon no new evidence during re-investigation of this case, except for recording a totally new and highly improved version of his statement, it said.“Let it be stated at the cost of repetition that the evidence of PW26 is a bundle of improvements made by him on his previous version and his statement is absolutely unworthy of trust and credence. This court has no hesitation in rejecting the testimony of this highly interested and motivated witness,” the Court added..The Court also ruled that the link evidence was missing in the case as many witnesses were declared hostile since they refused to support the prosecution case. The bulk of the so-called evidence led in this case by the prosecution is “hypothetical and assumptious” in nature and deserves to be ignored, the judge said.Thus it acquitted all the accused. “It is held that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt to the accused persons and consequently, accused namely Ravinder Bhasin (A-2), Rajeev Gupta (A-3), Nirmal Singh (A-4) and Ms. Nirmal Yadav (A-5), are hereby acquitted of the charges framed against them for commission of offences punishable under Section 11 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 120-B read with Sections 193, 192, 196, 199 and 200 of Indian Penal Code,” the judge said..Public Prosecutor Narender Singh represented the CBI.Senior Advocate SK Garg Narwana and advocate VG Narwana represented Justice Nirmal Yadav. Advocates AS Chahal, BS Riar and Hitesh Puri represented other accused..[Read Judgment]