The Punjab and Haryana High Court has permitted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to examine 12 additional witnesses in the case against Justice Nirmal Yadav.
The bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul has observed that the the witnesses are necessary for just adjudication of the case coupled with the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the accused as the defence would get opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the witnesses summoned under Section 311 Cr.P.C.:
The 12 witnesses include Neela Gangadharan, IAS, to prove sanction for prosecution, Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices Ltd., to authenticate call detail records and tower locations of the accused persons; V.K. Gupta, for production of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; CBI Officers Tanmaya Behara and S.K. Sharma, to authenticate seizure memos. Furthermore, Vijay Bahadur and S.S. Yadav, who are official witnesses to the seizure memos, and are also relevant to prove the seizure memos; Rajesh Kumar, Special Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, to clarify ambiguity in his previous deposition which arose on account of him identifying the accused as “Nirmaljit”; and An Officer from the Registrar General Office of this Court would be necessary to prove D-32, letter dated 15.10.2018 containing the personal details of allotment of house as well as the landline phone number allowed to accused Nirmal Yadav and also to further prove the calls between her and co-accused Ravinder Singh Bhasin.
What Happened ?
A crucial statement by Amrik Singh, a peon working at the camp office of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, has shed light on the shocking sequence of events in the infamous “Cash at Judge’s Door” scam.
According to Singh’s written submission, on the night of August 13, 2008, at approximately 8:30 PM, security guard Gurvinder Singh informed him that a visitor had arrived at the residence. Upon checking, Singh identified the visitor as Prakash, a clerk known to him, who was carrying a plastic bag. Prakash informed Singh that the bag contained important papers from Delhi meant for delivery inside. Without verifying the contents, Singh relayed the message to Justice Nirmaljit Kaur.
Suspicious of the package, Justice Kaur instructed Singh to inspect its contents. Upon opening the bag, he discovered a large sum of cash. Reacting immediately, the judge reprimanded Singh and ordered him to detain the individual who had delivered the bag. Singh, along with the security guard, apprehended Prakash, and Justice Kaur instructed the guard to call the police.
Within minutes, a police team arrived at the judge’s residence and took Prakash and the bag full of cash into custody. The incident, which later unraveled into a major judicial bribery scandal, was subsequently handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for further inquiry.
Singh’s statement has emerged as a key piece of evidence in the case, strengthening the prosecution’s argument that the cash was intended for another judge, Justice Nirmal Yadav, as alleged by the CBI. The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently allowed the CBI to examine 12 additional witnesses in connection with the case, further intensifying the legal proceedings in one of the most high-profile corruption cases in judicial history.
The investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by an order dated 26.08.2008 of Gen. (Retd.) S.F. Rodrigues, Government of Punjab and Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh, and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 18.04.2011. Special Court framed charges against the accused vide order dated 18.01.2014.
Initially, the prosecution cited 84 witnesses, out of which only 69 witnesses were examined. During the trial, the prosecution moved two applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which were disposed of by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 01.12.2021.
The first application seeking permission to produce a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was allowed. The second application seeking examination of the Judicial Magistrate concerned, to prove the statement of Jai Parkash Rana, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was, however, rejected.
Thereafter, another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution, seeking re-examination of Pankaj Bhardwaj on the ground that his statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not put to him during his testimony. This application was dismissed vide order dated 18.05.2022. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was formally closed on 07.09.2022.
Subsequently, on 27.09.2022, the prosecution moved the application in question under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking to examine 22 additional witnesses, which was dismissed by the learned Special Court vide impugned order dated 15.10.2022. The CBI has approached the Court.
The court held that Trial Court shall ensure that no unnecessary adjournments are granted; the defence shall also cooperate with the learned Trial Court in the expeditious conclusion of the trial. As regards the remaining witnesses, the prosecution has failed to establish their relevance or the necessity of their re- examination. Hence, the instant petition is partially allowed, permitting examination of only the above listed witnesses.
Case Details
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Ravinder Singh @ Ravinder Singh Bhasin and others
Case No.: CRM-M-5959-2025
Date: 17.02.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Akashdeep Singh, Spl. Public Prosecutor, CBI
Counsel For Respondent: G.C. Shahpuri
