CBI FABRICATED EVIDENCE AGAINST JUSTICE NIRMAL YADAV, SAYS COURT WHILE ACQUITTING HER

Chandigarh, April 2, 2025: In a landmark judgment, a Chandigarh court has acquitted former Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice Nirmal Yadav in a 2008 corruption case, ruling that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) fabricated evidence to frame her. The verdict, delivered on March 29 by Special Judge (CBI) Alka Malik, criticized the agency for not adhering to its initial closure report and instead relying on an unreliable witness.

CBI’S INVESTIGATION QUESTIONED

The court stated, “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, hypotheses, and all falsehood.”

CASE BACKGROUND

The case dates back to August 2008, when a bag containing ₹15 lakh was mistakenly delivered to Justice Nirmaljit Kaur’s residence instead of Justice Nirmal Yadav. The money was allegedly intended as gratification for a property dispute judgment. Justice Kaur’s peon reported the incident, leading to an FIR by Chandigarh Police. The case was later transferred to the CBI, which initially filed a closure report but later submitted a charge sheet in 2011.

COURT’S STAND ON WITNESS TESTIMONY

The court found witness Raj Kumar Jain alias Raj Kumar Mittal, an Additional District Judge at the time, to be unreliable. The judgment observed:

“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.”

Additionally, the court dismissed Jain’s claim of being pressured by Justice Yadav, noting, “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 minute’s notice.”

CBI’S ROLE IN FRAMING THE CASE

The court criticized the CBI for allegedly using Jain to construct a false case against Justice Yadav. It stated, “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.”

The judgment also pointed out that the CBI had initially found the accused innocent in its first investigation and had filed a closure report in December 2009. A supplementary statement from Jain was recorded only later, with no additional evidence introduced during the reinvestigation.

ACQUITTAL OF ALL ACCUSED

Due to missing link evidence and several witnesses turning hostile, the court found the prosecution’s case to be largely based on assumptions. Thus, all accused were acquitted. The verdict read:

“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.”

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

• 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 the other accused.

This case highlights serious concerns regarding investigative integrity and underscores the need for accountability in legal proceedings.