Necessary For Just Adjudication: Punjab & Haryana HC Permits CBI To Examine Six More Witnesses In A Case Against Justice Nirmal Yadav
Justice Nirmal Yadav (former Judge) is an accused in a case wherein a bag containing Rs. 15 lakhs was delivered at the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, the then sitting Judge.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to examine six more witnesses in a case against Justice Nirmal Yadav, a former Judge of the High Court.
Justice Nirmal Yadav is an accused in a 2008 case wherein a bag containing Rs. 15 lakhs was delivered at the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, the then sitting Judge of the High Court.
The CBI was challenging the Order of the Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh by which its Application under Section 322 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking to examine 22 prosecution witnesses, was dismissed.
A Single Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, “After careful consideration of the submissions and settled principles of law, this Court finds that the following 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.”
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Akashdeep Singh represented the Petitioner/CBI while Senior Advocate S.K. Garg, Advocates G.C. Shahpuri, and Sangram S. Saron represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The case originated from an FIR initially registered by the Chandigarh Police on August 16, 2008. As per the said FIR, on August 13, 2008, around 8:30 pm, an incident occurred at the camp office of Justice Nirmaljeet Kaur in Chandigarh. Amrik Singh, the office camp peon, received a visit from Prakash Munshi, who handed him a plastic bag claiming it contained papers from Delhi. Without checking the contents, Amrik Singh took the bag inside and informed Justice Nirmaljeet Kaur, who instructed him to check the bag. Upon opening it, Amrik Singh found currency notes inside. Justice Nirmaljeet Kaur scolded Amrik Singh and asked him to catch the person who had brought the bag.
Amrik Singh, along with Justice Nirmaljeet Kaur and Guard Guruvinder Singh, apprehended Prakash Munshi and called the police, who arrived and took Munshi and the currency notes into custody. Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to the CBI and upon completion of the same, chargesheet was filed. The Special Court framed charges against the accused. As per the prosecution, the said amount of Rs. 15 lakhs being delivered by a clerk of former Haryana Additional Advocate General Sanjeev Bansal, was meant for Justice Nirmal Yadav, instead of Justice Nirmaljeet Kaur.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in the above regard, observed, “The instant petition has been filed by the CBI seeking recalling and re-examination of certain witnesses as well as summoning additional witnessed to substantiate its case. … The prayer has been opposed by the accused/respondents on multiple grounds, including delay, alleged abuse of process, and an attempt by the prosecution to fill lacunae in its case at a highly belated stage.”
The Court took note of Section 311 Cr.P.C. that confers broad discretionary powers upon the Court to summon or recall witnesses at any stage of the proceedings.
“… merely because allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. may delay the conclusion of trial, it cannot be a ground to deprive the complainant of its right to a fair trial. The Court must, while striking a balance between the two, apply its mind to the necessity of the evidence to be led under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in order to arrive at a just decision in the case”, it further noted.
The Court was of the view that each application must be examined on its own merits to determine whether the evidence sought to be introduced is essential to the just decision of the case.
“… the request for their examination cannot be rejected solely on the ground of purportedly filling lacunae”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Petition and directed the CBI to examine 6 witnesses within four weeks.
Cause Title- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravinder Singh @ Ravinder Singh Bhasin and others (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:022976)
Appearance:
Petitioner: SPP Akashdeep Singh
Respondents: Senior Advocate S.K. Garg, Advocates G.C. Shahpuri, Sangram S. Saron, Madhavrao Rajwade, and Vishal Garg Narwana.
