Cash-at-judge`s-door: Bar Asso claims offences made out

Last Updated: Saturday, March 13, 2010 - 20:47

Chandigarh: A CBI court on Saturday asked
Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association to provide the
"ingredients" on which it had contended that offences are made
out against the accused in the cash-at-judge`s-door
case.

Anupam Gupta, the counsel on behalf of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court Bar Association which had moved a protest
petition against the CBI`s closure report saying the agency
came under pressure from forces outside it, contended before
CBI Special Judge Darshan Singh that the offences are made out
against the accused.
But the court asked the Bar Association counsel to
"provide the ingredients" on which it had made the contention.

Gupta also submitted that the Association was not of
the opinion that further investigations must be carried out in
this case.

Judge Darshan Singh fixed March 20 as the next date of
hearing after questioning the defence on whether the accused
has any right to be heard in the case before the
pre-cognisance stage.

The case came to light nearly two years back when an
amount of Rs 15 lakh was "wrongly delivered" at the residence
of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur of the High Court here following
which she reported the matter to the police.
Ram, clerk of former Haryana Additional Advocate General
Sanjeev Bansal-the prime accused in the case, had allegedly
delivered the money after which the police registered an FIR
on August 16, 2008. The case was later handed over to the CBI
on August 28, 2008.

Bansal, Rajiv Gupta, a businessman, and other accused
Parkash Ram and Nirmal Singh had got bail in October 2008 in
the case, while the fifth accused, Delhi-based Ravinder Singh
was granted bail on November 6, 2008.

The then High Court judge Justice Nirmal Yadav had
denied the allegation that the money delivered at Justice
Kaur`s residence was actually meant for her.

The CBI counsel had earlier submitted that the 20-page
closure report filed by the investigating agency mentioned
that it could not proceed in the case due to want of sanction
from the competent authority.

PTI



First Published: Saturday, March 13, 2010 - 20:47

More from zeenews

 
comments powered by Disqus