DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

High Court stays verdict in ‘cash at judge’s door’ case

  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

Chandigarh, December 24

Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the trial in “cash-at-judge’s-door scam” may continue, but the final judgment would not be pronounced.

Advertisement

The order by Justice Anoop Chitkara of the High Court will remain in operation at least till May 24, 2023 — the next date of hearing in the case.

Advertisement

Among other things, Justice Chitkara’s Bench was told that the evidence of some of the witnesses dropped by the special public prosecutor during the course of trial was required for a just decision of the case.

Besides this, a number of other witnesses required for the purpose were also mentioned in the application.

Advertisement

The direction came nearly 14 years after the case allegedly involving a former High Court judge, Justice Nirmal Yadav, was registered. The trial, pending before the special CBI court in Chandigarh, is currently at the stage of final arguments.

Justice Chitkara was hearing an application filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation. At the onset, it was stated that prosecution witnesses Rajinder Kumar, Mohinder Kaur, Rakesh Kumar, Mohan Joshi, Bansidhar, Vijay Singh and Manju Jain were dropped by the special public prosecutor during the trial of the case. But Mohinder Kaur, Rakesh Kumar and Mohan Joshi “stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC regarding relevant facts against accused persons”.

The application added: “It is respectfully submitted that the evidence of these witnesses are essential for a just decision of this case. These witnesses may kindly be summoned for a just and correct decision of the instant case”.

AK Mauriya, “holding investigating officer of the CBI” added that prejudice would not be caused to the accused persons in case the applicant was allowed to summon the prosecution witnesses in the interest of justice. Moreover, the applicant undertook to complete the examination of the witnesses expeditiously, within a time as short as possible, and would not in any manner delay the proceeding.

The case allegedly involving Punjab and Haryana High Court’s then Judge, Justice Nirmal Yadav, surfaced in August 2008 after another Judge, Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, called in the police after Rs 15 lakh was erroneously delivered at her house. The case was initially registered by the Chandigarh Police, but was handed over to the CBI.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts