Cash-at-judge`s-door: Bar Asso claims offences made out
  • This Section
  • Latest
  • Web Wrap
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.


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

comments powered by Disqus