CBI moves Punjab and Haryana High Court against Justice Nirmal Yadav acquittal in graft case

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the trial court acquittal of Justice Nirmal Yadav, a former judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a corruption case registered by the agency in 2008 against her and others..A Division Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul and Justice HS Grewal on Monday issued notice to Yadav and three others and listed the CBI’s appeal for hearing on December 15. Special Public Prosecutor Akashdeep Singh appeared for CBI..A Chandigarh court in March this year had found that CBI fabricated evidence against Justice Yadav to frame her in the corruption case..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..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 trial judge ruled..All the accused in the case were acquitted on March 29. In the judgment made available later, the trial court said Jain as a witness was absolutely unworthy of trust. The trial 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..In the appeal, CBI has argued that the verdict is perverse as the trial court despite acknowledging various circumstantial links has summarily discarded them on speculative and subjective reasoning."The prosecution's case is supported by the testimony of 78 witnesses. However, while assessing the merits of the case, the learned Trial Judge has conspicuously remained silent on the overall evidentiary landscape, confining the analysis to the testimony of only 10-12 witnesses. No reasoning or justification has been provided for disregarding the evidence of the remaining witnesses, thereby undermining a comprehensive appreciation of the case," the agency said..[Read High Court order]